Simon Bunn – Derceto Inc OPERATING PUMPS TO MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY AND TO MINIMIZE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT Simon Bunn – Derceto Inc

The Issue Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” brought global warming to the attention of the general public Water Utilities are particularly exposed, they are high energy users and warmer temperatures lead to less raw water while simultaneously increasing demand “The more than 60,000 water systems and 15,000 wastewater systems in the United States are among the country’s largest energy consumers, using about 75 billion kWh/yr nationally — 3 percent of annual U.S. electricity consumption." Electric Power Research Institute, Energy Audit Manual for Water/Wastewater Facilities, (Palo Alto: 1999), Executive Summary

Energy Use in US Water Distribution The US water industry uses approximately $10B of electricity to pump water consuming 100 Million MWh per year of electricity. 90% to 95% of this is used for pumping Pump scheduling so-far has only targeted time-of-use tariffs and peak charge avoidance Targeting efficiency for each pump and pump station can lead to considerable kWh reductions Each kWh saved also leads to greenhouse gas reductions Targeting the lowest kWh/MG/ft should therefore be a goal of all water utilities

Typical Energy Use in Water Utilities

Lifecycle costs of a water pump

Improving pump efficiency A major European Union study of pumps1 recommended: Select pumps according to duty requirements Measure pump performance regularly Replace or refurbish poorly performing pumps Polish or coat pump surfaces Use automatic pump scheduling / pump selection software targeting efficiency 1. European Commission, “Study on improving the energy efficiency of pumps”, February 2001, AEAT-6559/ v 5.1

Polishing/coating pump surfaces

Refurbish or replace? Refurbish $20,000 Replace $60,000 Pump Installed 1963 Duty 66 gal/s @ 157ft As new Pump efficiency 82% As new motor efficiency 92% Present Pump Efficiency 70% Potential Savings 14.60% Present Input Power 182.7 kW Price of Electricity 10 Cents / kW hr Present running cost $160,045/year Refurbish $20,000 Replace $60,000 Potential input power 155.95 kW Potential running cost $133,610 Saving $26,435/year New pump efficiency 84% New motor efficiency 96% New input power 145.9 kW New running cost $127,801 Saving $32,244

Selecting a pump

The moving System Curve night day

Pump Scheduling Optimization Aquadapt software installed in four major US utilities It fully automatically schedules production, pumps and valves including issuing all commands via Scada Primary objective is cost minimization but must supply all customers Water Quality requirements are included as rules It creates 48 hour ahead schedules for all assets under its control Automatic adaptation to changing conditions is achieved by re-optimizing every 30 minutes Maintenance requirements are easily scheduled and automatically accommodated

Single Objective : Cost Minimization Five key cost reduction methods are employed Electrical load movement in time, to maximize utilization of low cost tariff blocks Electricity peak demand reduction. Energy efficiency improvements from pumps and pumping plants. Utilization of lowest production and chemical cost sources of water. Utilization of shortest path between source and destination Of these, energy efficiency improvements produced the most unexpected outcome.

Selecting pumps can be counter-intuitive

Variable Speed Pump Performance

This affect was seen system wide

Pumps operate more efficiently

Key Energy Management Modules Operator Panel Optimizer Simulator/EPANET PC on LAN Data Cleaner SCADA Interface OPC Current day / real-time Primary Database Backup Database Aquadapt (Live Server) Back-up Database (Historical Server) Client SCADA System Application Manager PC on LAN Dashboard PC on LAN

Real-time pump curve data In this example a pump is running well on its curve and at peak efficiency

Flat pump curves can be a problem

Four Case Histories We specifically analysed four US utilities running standard Aquadapt pump scheduling software Customer System Pop. Served Storage tanks Pressure zones Pump Stations Pumps Auto Valves Demand (MLD) East Bay MUD, CA 660k 28 26 20 66 4 160 to 480 Washington Suburban, MD 1.6m 57 15 18 81 25 640 to 900 WaterOne, Kansas 570k 3 84 11 190 to 400 Eastern Municipal, CA 630k 68 38 59 149 9 180 to 450

Audited CO2 reductions for our clients Customer System Average MWH per Year Average Efficiency Gain under Aquadapt EPA eGRID 2004 CO2 Emissions (Tons/MWh) Extrapolated CO2 Reduction per Year (Tons) East Bay MUD, CA 26,000 6.1% 0.502 800 Eastern Municipal, CA 7,000 8.4% 0.515 300 Washington Suburban, MD 99,000 8.3% 0.547 4,500 WaterOne, KS 94,000 6.0% 0.845 4,800

Visit us at our stand 211 DERCETO Conclusions The US water industry uses approximately $10B of electricity to pump water consuming 100 Million MWh per year of electricity. A reduction of 6% to 9% in this energy consumption through efficiency improvements would therefore lead to saving between 6 and 9 Million MWh per year. The average CO2 emission for the US is approx. 0.51 tons per Megawatt hour. The potential CO2 reduction therefore, is between 3 million tons and 4.5 million tons Visit us at our stand 211 DERCETO