Slow and Steady Lowers the Electric Bill: Pump
Slow and steady lowers the electric bill: Pump station energy efficiency upgrades Andrew J. Weiss, P.E. | Executive Engineer, OCWA Nate Medford, P.E. | Project Engineer, GHD New York’s Water Event – April 15, 2015 Image placeholder Presentation outline Water utility energy usage OCWA system overview Image place holder OCWA energy usage 7G decision-making Image place holder Pump Station Improvements Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Water utility energy usage Energy usage by water utilities Breakdown of energy usage • Pumping (raw water & distribution) ~ 80 percent • Treatment ~ 20 percent Increasing energy usage by water utilities driven by several factors. • New treatment techniques (membrane filtration, desalination, UV, etc.) • Increasing extent of distribution systems • Aging infrastructure (increased friction and water loss, decreased efficiency of mechanical equipment) • Climate change – droughts force usage of lower quality source water and expansive distribution • Unrealized growth resulting in oversized systems and inefficient operations Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill OCWA system overview Total system delivery – 37 MGD Water sources • Otisco Lake WTP – 18 MGD • Metropolitan Water Board (Lake Ontario) – 18 MGD • City of Syracuse – 1 MGD Population served – 340,000 Storage facilities – 55 Pumping facilities – 42 Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill OCWA energy usage Energy consumption OCWA 2010 2012 2013 2014 Total kWh Used 6,750,000 6,580,000 6,600,000 7,170,000 Total Energy Cost (electric and gas) $ 901,700 $ 714,300 $ 688,000 $915,000 Total Annual Water Delivered by OCWA 13.6 BG 14 BG 13.2 BG 13.5 BG kWh/MG 496 kWh/MG 470 kWh/MG 500 kWh/MG 530 kWh/MG No. Customers 92,250 93,512 100,591 100,948 kWh per customer 73 kWh 70 kWh 65 kWh 71 kWh Elec. Cost/MG $ 66/MG $ 51/MG $ 52/MG $68/MG Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Energy consumption breakdown Use Total Electric Total Gas Total Cost % WTP $ 52,000 $ 16,000 $ 68,000 7% Storage Tanks $ 43,000 $ 300 $ 43,300 5% Large Pump Stations $ 515,000 $ 5,000 $ 520,000 57% Small Pump Station $ 174,000 $ 5,000 $ 179,000 20% Other Metered Sites $ 19,000 $ 300 $ 19,300 2% Buildings $ 62,000 $ 23,000 $ 85,000 9% TOTALS $ 865,000 $ 50,000 $ 915,000 2% 9% 2014 7% 5% 20% 57% WTP Tanks Large PS Small PS Metered Buildings Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill 7G decision making OCWA sustainability efforts Recycling & Waste Reduction Transportation Purchasing & Procurement Energy Consumption Information Technology Distribution & Operations Efficiency Carbon Footprint Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Operational changes Embrace consolidation Increase use of Otisco Lake water Hydraulic efficiency improvements Reduce unaccounted for water Technology Implementation & Updates Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Reduced energy usage WTP Improvements Increased Use Of Otisco Lake Water LED Lighting Project Pump Station Improvements Northern Concourse Building Improvements Smaller, Fuel Efficient Vehicles Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Pump station improvements Project location Miles 0 1 2 N Syracuse Thurber St. PS Elev. 530 Seneca PS & WS Tank Elev. 730 Sentinel Heights WS Tanks Elev. 1,030 Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Existing conditions Thurber St. PS • Three, split-case, bottomsuction centrifugal pumps • 4,600 GPM at 152-ft • Capacity – 13 MGD • 250 Hp electric motors • 16-in pump control valve Seneca PS • Three, split-case, bottomsuction centrifugal pumps • 3,500 GPM at 283-ft • Capacity – 10 MGD • 300 Hp electric motors • 16-in pump control valve Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Demand and capacity Thurber St PS Demand • Average: 1.1 MGD • Peak: 1.9 MGD Seneca PS Demand • Average: 0.9 MGD • Peak: 1.3 MGD Reduced demand from projections estimated during initial station design • Expected build-up of communities south of Syracuse never realized • Water conservation efforts Pump Station Thurber Seneca Capacity 1 (MGD) Original 6.6 5.0 New 2.1 1.8 Run time (hr) -- Original New Average 4 12 Peak 7 21 Average 4 12 Peak 6 18 Note: 1. Single pump capacity Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill System - Average System - Max System - Min Pump - Flow Pump - Efficiency Thurber Street PS 350 1 0.9 300 250 0.7 0.6 200 0.5 150 0.4 Efficiency Total Dynamic Head (ft) 0.8 0.3 100 0.2 50 0.1 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0 2,500 Flow (GPM) Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Other energy efficiency improvements Existing conditions Modifications Final conditions High-intensity discharge (HID) lights Improve energy efficiency of lighting High-efficiency fluorescent lighting Roof insulation – 2-in rigid insulation Take advantage of roofing replacement to improve building energy efficiency Roof insulation – 6-in polyiso (ASTM C1289) Roof-mounted exhaust fans • Two, ¾-Hp, 5,000 CFM Electric unit heaters • Three, 10-kW, 34,000 BTU/hr Decrease ventilation requirements • Removal of diesel engine • Smaller pump motors Roof-mounted exhaust fans • One, ½-Hp, 2,600 CFM Gas unit heaters • Three, 105,000 BTU/hr Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Present value comparison: baseline Thurber St PS – Original pumps (replace in kind) • 71 percent efficiency • 3,800 gpm at 168 ft • 20 year project life • 5 hours per day • 3 percent discount rate Cost item Base date cost Year of occurrence Discount factor Present value Initial investment $3,500,000 -- -- $3,500,000 Capital improvement $75,000 10 0.744 $60,000 Electricity ($0.10/kWh) $33,100 Annual 14.88 $490,000 Maintenance $5,000 Annual 14.88 $74,000 Salvage ($10,000) 25 0.478 ($5,000) Total $4,100,000 Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Present value comparison: alternative Thurber St PS – New pumps • 81 percent efficiency • 1,600 gpm at 160 ft • 12.5 hours per day • 20 year project life • 3 percent discount rate Cost item Base date cost Year of occurrence Discount factor Present value Initial investment $3,250,000 -- -- $3,250,000 Capital improvement $50,000 10 0.744 $40,000 Electricity ($0.10/kWh) $21,700 Annual 14.88 $320,000 Maintenance $5,000 Annual 14.88 $70,000 Salvage ($5,000) 25 0.478 ($2,000) Total $3,700,000 Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Total usage Peak demand 50,000 45,000 Total usage (kWh) 240 New pumps operational 220 200 40,000 180 35,000 160 30,000 140 25,000 120 20,000 100 Original pumps demolished 15,000 Peak demand (kW) Actual energy savings – Thurber 80 60 Nov-14 Sep-14 Jul-14 May-14 Mar-14 Jan-14 Nov-13 Sep-13 Jul-13 May-13 Mar-13 Jan-13 Nov-12 Sep-12 Jul-12 May-12 Mar-12 Jan-12 Nov-11 Sep-11 10,000 Month Total electrical usage – 25 percent decrease; Peak demand – 40 percent decrease Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill During construction Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill During construction Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill During construction Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Finished project Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Finished project Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Finished project Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill Acknowledgements Mr. Anthony Geiss, P.E. – OCWA Mr. Geoffrey Miller, P.E. – OCWA Mr. Anthony Palamara – OCWA Mr. Sean Hayes – OCWA Mr. Michael Eckert – OCWA Mr. Kevin Castro, P.E. – GHD Mr. Jeremy Boyer – C.O. Falter Slow and steadyPresentation lowers the electric titlebill
© Copyright 2024