Opening

Slide
Energy Reduction in Pumps & Pumping
Systems Objective

Peerless Pump Company

 Energy Reduction in Pumps &
Pumping Systems Objective

When you have successfully completed this workshop,

you will understand and be able to discuss :
– How the efficient use of pumps helps maximize power
utilization
– The ways in which power is consumed in different
applications
– Potential savings available through energy conservation
relating to pumps and pumping systems
– Pump economics relating to operating costs and
purchase costs of pumps
– The seven possible opportunities for savings in energy
costs of pumps and pumping systems
 Energy Evaluation of Pumping
Systems

Total System Evaluation (TSE)

Life Cycle Costs for Pumping Systems
Power Smart Programs
Pumping Assessment Tool
Pump System Life Cycle Reduction
 “Pump Systems Matter”

A New Educational Initiative Led by HI and a

Coalition of the Willing, Focused on:

ENERGY SAVINGS
OPPORTUNITIES & LCC
 Manufacturing in the United
States

Economic Vitality of Manufacturing

– Rising health care costs
– Tort litigation
– Reducing regulatory burdens and costs
– Rapidly rising energy costs
External costs add a 22% cost disadvantage to US
manufacturers....
offers solutions in areas of energy savings & total LCC
Ref.: Manufacturing In America/U.S. Dept. Of Commerce
& NAM
 Projected Energy Use in U.S.
Total U.S. Energy Production vs. Consumption:
2000-2020
140
Total U.S. Consumption
Quadrillion Btu per year

120 Critical
100
Gap
80
Total U.S. Production
60

40

20

0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Source: Energy Information Administration projections
 Major Energy-Intensive Industries
Industrial Energy Intensity vs. Energy Consumption
1000

Most Energy-
Intensive
(Thousand Btu/$ GDP)

Petroleum
Industries
Energy Intensity

100
Primary Paper
Mining
Metals Chemicals
Nonmetallic Minerals
Textiles/Apparel
10
Tobacco/Beverages Plastics/ Food Processing
Furniture Rubber Fabricated Metals
Transportation
Leather Printing
Machinery and Computers
Miscellaneous Electrical
1
10 100 1000 10000
Energy Consumption (Trillion Btu)

Sources: EIA 2001, 1998 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey; U.S.

DOE 2002, Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Mining Industry
 U.S. Industrial Pump Systems

Energy Savings Opportunity

Billion kwh/year
30

25 8.6 Other
20
6.2 Petroleum Refining
15
Pulp & Paper
6.3
10

5 Chemicals 2 Sewage Lift Station

7.6
4 Treatment Facilities
0

Manufacturing Municipal Wastewater

$1.4 Billion/yr $150-300 Million/yr
Reference: Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment, DOE, 1998
Focus of US DOE, EPA and NGOs: Energy
Savings
Pumping systems account for nearly
20% of the world‘s electrical energy
demand and range from 25% to 50%
of the energy usage in certain
industrial plant operations
Warning: Pumps are now on their
RADAR screens!
VFD $3.3B/yr
 Power Smart relating to
Pumps

8% losses associated with friction

1% losses due to bearings
20% losses due to throttling
6% due to motor inefficiencies
18% losses to misapplied pumps, not
matched to systems
 Studies of Proper Pump Selection in
Matching Pumps to the System Head Curve

They take 10% more time to design

They generally result in 10% savings in first
cost
They generally demonstrate 50% savings in
the first 5 year LCC
 Frictional Systems

When a VFD can replace a control valve generally

show 54% savings in operation
Based on 5 year LCC
Control valve option costs $70,000
VFD option cost is $32,025
Savings realized is $38,267
 Oil Seal vs. Lab Seals

100 pumps with 200 contact oil seals

Energy costs of $0.07569/kWh
8766 hours per year
Friction costs to run these pumps with contact
oil seals is $19,507/yr
 Energy Savings: Just Part of
the Picture

Energy costs can be a significant expense to users.

It has not been easy, however, to motivate users to make
investments for energy-savings alone.
Focusing on pumping systems creates a unique
opportunity for HI & its members to change the business
dialogue – from initial cost to total LCC.
Pump Systems Matter will begin this long-term process
to change behaviors in the marketplace while creating
new business opportunities for members.
A significant educational effort, including outreach is
required
 Protecting the Pump Industry

Avoid federal & state government regulations.

EU: Labeling of pumps & requirements for
energy efficiency of pumps (EcoDesign).
Canada: Minimum pump efficiency for under 5hp
pumps.
New U.S. Energy Bill & increasing focus by Fed &
States on sustained high cost of energy.
Work with government vs. be regulated by them.
Why don’t most customers use Life Cycle
Costing?

We wrote the book on Pump

Life Cycle Cost…
...Now What??
Conflicting Issues -- What To Do?
Communication -- Money Speaks
 Top Levels Of The LCC Tree

 LCC = Acquisition Costs + Sustaining Costs

Life Cycle
Cost Tree
Easy to Obtain Difficult to Obtain

Acquisition Costs Sustaining Costs

 Acquisition costs and sustaining costs are not

mutually exclusive -- find both by gathering
correct inputs and identifying cost drivers.
 Which Pumping Equipment To Buy?
Acquisition
Capital Case # Vendor Condition
Cost
Case 1 $ 64,241 A Variable speed 4pole-belt
Expensive Case 2 $ 65,841 A Variable speed 4pole-gear
Case 3 $ 56,341 A Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill back
Case 4 $ 57,941 A Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill back
Case 5 $ 64,938 A Variable speed 8pole-direct drive
Case 6 $ 41,350 B Variable speed 4pole-belt
Case 7 $ 42,950 B Variable speed 4pole-gear
Case 8 $ 33,450 B Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill back
Case 9 $ 35,050 B Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill back
Case 10 $ 41,314 B Variable speed 8pole-direct drive
Case 11 $ 36,241 C Variable speed 4pole-belt
Case 12 $ 40,063 C Variable speed 4pole-gear
Cheap Case 13 $ 28,686 C Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill back
Case 14 $ 32,463 C Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill back
Case 15 $ 38,538 C Variable speed 8pole-direct drive
 Choose Least Negative NPV

Cost Models - NPV’s Will Be Negative

Typical Annual Costs
Annual Annual
Routine
Process Electrical Cost Cost
Capital Case # Vendor Overhaul Maint
Damage Cost (Except (Yr 14
Cost
Yr 14) Motor $)
Case 1 A $ 9,073 $ 8,181 $ 6,645 $ 3,000 $ 26,899 $ 29,399
Expensive Case 2 A $ 9,073 $ 7,805 $ 6,645 $ 2,500 $ 26,023 $ 28,523
Case 3 A $ 9,073 $ 12,610 $ 10,945 $ 3,000 $ 35,628 $ 38,128
Case 4 A $ 9,073 $ 11,891 $ 10,495 $ 2,500 $ 33,959 $ 36,459
Case 5 A $ 9,073 $ 7,668 $ 6,645 $ 2,500 $ 25,886 $ 30,286
Case 6 B $ 18,145 $ 8,624 $ 5,881 $ 3,000 $ 35,650 $ 38,150
Case 7 B $ 18,145 $ 8,211 $ 5,881 $ 2,500 $ 34,737 $ 37,237
Case 8 B $ 18,145 $ 13,338 $ 10,181 $ 3,000 $ 44,664 $ 47,164
Case 9 B $ 18,145 $ 12,584 $ 10,181 $ 2,500 $ 43,410 $ 45,910
Case 10 B $ 18,145 $ 8,019 $ 5,881 $ 2,500 $ 34,545 $ 38,945
Case 11 C $ 18,145 $ 8,641 $ 6,830 $ 4,250 $ 37,866 $ 40,366
Case 12 C $ 18,145 $ 8,227 $ 6,830 $ 3,750 $ 36,952 $ 39,452
Cheap Case 13 C $ 18,145 $ 12,823 $ 11,130 $ 4,250 $ 46,348 $ 48,848
Case 14 C $ 18,145 $ 12,095 $ 11,130 $ 3,750 $ 45,120 $ 47,620
Case 15 C $ 18,145 $ 8,036 $ 6,830 $ 3,750 $ 36,761 $ 41,161
 The Winning Case Has An
NPV ’s -- Life Time Costs NPV Advantage of +$63,412
Acquisition
NPV Case # NPV Vendor Condition
Cost
Case 1 $ 64,241 $ (180,012) A Variable speed 4pole-belt
Case 2 $ 65,841 $ (177,328) A Variable speed 4pole-gear
Case 3 $ 56,341 $ (213,658) A Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill back
Case 4 $ 57,941 $ (207,301) A Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill back
Best Case 5
Case 6
$
$
64,938
41,350
$ (176,160)
$ (200,896)
 A
B
Variable speed 8pole-direct drive
Variable speed 4pole-belt
Case 7 $ 42,950 $ (198,041) B Variable speed 4pole-gear
Case 8 $ 33,450 $ (235,861) B Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill back
Case 9 $ 35,050 $ (231,427) B Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill back
Case 10 $ 41,314 $ (195,989) B Variable speed 8pole-direct drive
Case 11 $ 36,241 $ (206,774) C Variable speed 4pole-belt
Case 12 $ 40,063 $ (205,821) C Variable speed 4pole-gear
Worst Case 13 $ 28,686 $ (239,572) C Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill back
Case 14 $ 32,463 $ (236,869) C Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill back
Case 15 $ 38,538 $ (203,869) C Variable speed 8pole-direct drive

Watch out for the lure of the cheap first costs.

You may not be able to afford it!
 Opportunity: Brown & Green
Fields
Green field opportunity

Power

Brown field

ANSI
The Brown field is great opportunity because we have not had
the tools to attack this market. Green Field markets, while
smaller, represent a significant savings opportunity…

The Market is Ripe!

Most people feel the payback period is too
long…Others feel if they try really hard they will
only save 2-4% on their cost of energy…

“Pump Systems Matter” will address

these concerns…
 Transforming the Market for
Pumps and Pumping Systems

 Educate customers: buy right not cheap.

 Create educational tools, case studies and build
national & regional awareness.
 Pump Systems Matter initiatives will support HI
members & expands market opportunties
through education efforts.
 HI has been building relationships, resources
and tools for several years – but PSM recognizes
that much more work has to be done.
 HI’s Role with the U.S. DOE

The Hydraulic Institute is both a Charter Partner of the

Motor Challenge Program and several years ago became an
Allied Partner with the U.S. DOE.
HI created “Seven Ways to Save Energy” video training
HI involved with the early development of the Pump
Systems Assessment Tool (PSAT), developed by the US
DOE and offered two training classes in 2004.
Recently HI has set up three Advisory Committees to the
U.S. DOE to review PSAT ’04 upgrades, DOE tip sheets,
case studies and guides on pumps & pumping systems
The “pumps” section of www.pumps.org, includes “energy
savings” guidance, tips, US DOE case studies and tools,
including downloadable versions of PSAT software for the
benefit of users and non-government organizations.
 One Increasingly Popular
Tool = PSAT
Checklist used as first screen
to identify large energy
consumers
Second screening uses PSAT
software & operating data to
determine system operating
efficiency and energy
consumption
Comparison made with optimal
system indicates potential
energy and cost savings
Result is to identify those few
systems (on the order of 10 out
of 1000s of pumps systems)
that offer the greatest potential
benefits
PSAT Qualified Training offered
by HI and U.S. DOE in October
 Other Industrial Market
Transformation Programs
 Motors:
 EPACT ’92 – Federal legislation: min. efficiencies
 Motor Decisions Matter - CEE & NEMA
 NEMA Premium – Led by NEMA, responing to threat of
EnergyStar labelling by CEE (Utilities) & EPA
 Compressors:
 Compressed Air Challenge – organized by U.S. DOE
 Added New Service Dimension to Industry

 Steam:
 Steam Challenge – organized by U.S. DOE
 Why Market Transformation?
The government has told us we can either architect our
own future or have legislators do it for us .
After addressing most other consumer and industrial
products pumps & pumping systems are on the radar
screen .
The motor industry faced the same prospects. At first it did
not take a leadership role and had to deal with Federal
mandates. Recently added NEMA Premium.
US pump manufactures can create an advantage or find
themselves at a significant disadvantage if we fail to take a
leadership role. To lead or follow?
 HI Market Transformation
Transform the owner/operator and contractor from focusing
on lowest first cost to total LCC.
Develop new educational materials, tools and awareness.
Change the owner/operator and contractor from buying
cheap to buying right.
Create new business opportunities for the pumping industry
– new product, new service & approaches.
We need to engage others in this process to create friends
and allies with influence in states & markets.
DOE & EPA interests in energy-saving: now pumps.
 “Pump Systems Matter”

The first market transformation initiative set-up

and organized by a U.S. trade association.
A program consistent with recommendations
made by the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy (ACEEE) to the HI Board of
Directors.
A program that embraces the “systems” efforts
of the US DOE, builds positive relations DOE &
EPA & minimizes chances of unwanted
regulations or labeling.
Our best chance to create new demand for
pumps and pumping systems in the U.S.
 “Pump Systems Matter”
Organization & Funding
Majority of funding to come from other stake-
holders, but a fee schedule will allow all interested
parties to play.
Majority of HI member companies funding per
sliding scale (see schedule). See Charter Sponsor
Commitment Agreement – sent to all members
under separate cover
Establish a new educational foundation for
purpose of soliciting funding: a new 501(c)(3)
organization.
Leadership and decisions to be shared with key
sponsors and funding organizations (stake-
holders).
 ACEEE Report to Board & MT Committee

American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy retained by HI
Board to guide
 Possible Types of Stake-holders
Pump Industry OEMs: Pump Companies & Suppliers
Market Transformation Organizations: Utilities, State
& Federal Government
End-users: Fortune 100 with major plants and multi-
plant locations
Government Agencies: US DOE, US EPA,
Manufacturing Extension Partnership of US DOC
Engineers and Consultants – top companies
Repair and Service Organizations
Sales and Distributors: Direct, Reps and Distributors
Related Manufacturers: Motors, Seals and Piping
Other Related Associations
Independent Systems Consultants; Finance Orgs &
ESCOs
 PSM Potential Stake-holders

DOE – US Department of Energy

NEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NYSERDA – New York State Energy Research &
Development Administration
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric
SCE – Southern California Edison
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric
SMUD - Sacramento Municipal Utility District
ECW – Energy Center of Wisconsin
IEC – Iowa Energy Center
NEEP – Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships
 PSM Potential Stake-holders
DOC NIST/MEP –National Institute for Standards and
Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership
NASEO - National Association of State Energy Officers
ASERTTI - Association of State Energy Research and
Technology Transfer Institutes
Industry Associations (Market-specific):
– AIChE – American Society of Chemical Engineers
– TAPPI – Technical Association for the Pulp & Paper
Industry
– AWWA – American Water Works Association
– WEF – Water Environment Associations
– ASME – American Society of Mechanical Engineers
– AMWA - Association of Municipal Water Authorities
– AMSA - Association of Municipal Sewage
Authorities
 Next Steps

National Pump Systems Educational

Initiative:

“Pump Systems Matter” start-up

plans:
 A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats
 Pump Sytems Matter Program Brightens our Future
 Move markets to buying right, not cheap
 Move customers to buying based on Life Cycle
Costing/TCO, including energy costs
 Customers change the way they buy pumps
and pumping systems
 An Educated Customer & Market for Pumps &
Systems
 Creates new sales, service and support
opportunities for all pump cos. & suppliers
 Creates new educational information for all
 Discourages government mandates & labelling
 Funding Sources

HI Members: Charter Partners:

Peerless/LaBour Pump

Other Stake-holders: Charter

Partners
 Leadership vs. Control
DOE & Other Stake-holder Interest & Activity
Level is Increasing with pumps and pumping
systems
– Policy will be Created With or Without HI
Historic HI Engagement opportunity with DOE &
NGOs
HI Can Influence Policy, but Cannot Control
– 25+% Funding Stake = Significant Influence
Initiative & Organization Design = Significant
Influence
Commitment & Risk Taking = Significant
Influence
Important to engage as many HI members as
possible as Charter Partners = Significant
Influence
 Pump Systems Matters Tools

Sale of the following HI products and

services :
– Pump Life Cycle Cost Guide: $125.00 ea.
– Variable Speed Pumping Guide: $95.00 ea.
– Fundamentals of Pumping Course: $299.00 ea.
– Energy Savings in Pump Systems Video: $299.00
ea.
New HI Products & Services created:
particularly e-Learning, Guidebooks &
Workshops.
Certification role for HI (CEUs) will be
explored: non-dues revenue to co-
sponsor courses.
Other Stake-holder Funding Contributions
According to the ACEEE Report the Program
Plan for PSM is the vehicle for building a case
for each “stake-holder” to participate.
Need to determine levels that are appropriate to
the size of other stake-holders & their regional &
program interests in pumping systems.
The Compressed Air Challenge had a $30K/year
contribution from each co-sponsor for three
years.
Co-funders, as Charter Partners, become part of
the organizing committee & help recruit other
stake-holders.
 Inviting Your Participation in
PSM

Becoming a Charter Partner of “Pump Systems

Matter” demonstrates your intent to be a player
& benefit accordingly
By becoming a Charter Partner you can:
– Have a seat at the organizing table and planning mtgs.
– Help set priorities and plans and shape PSM direction
– Ensure that your interests are represented
– Network with other Non-government organizations,
utilities, users and other stake-holders
– Ensure that you are informed and involved
– Be listed on the PSM web site & have access to
products and services at Charter Partner discounts
What You’ve Been Sent
 Action Requested – What
Next?

Enroll members of your staff in the

upcoming PSAT Qualified Specialist
Training class– details in
“members” section of
www.pumps.org
 Thank You!

– Bill Adams, Flowserve (co-chair)

– Bill Taylor, ITT Industrial Products Group (co-chair)
– Dave Brockway, Intelliquip
– Joseph Gaul, Taco
– Pat DePalma, ITT Fluid (Bell & Gossett)
– Rich Heppe, Emerson – U.S. Motors
– Al Huber, Patterson Pump Company
– Joe Kozuch, Curtiss-Wright EMD
– Jim Kvas, GE Industrial Systems
– Mike McNamara, Sta-Rite
– Richard Niiranen, Sulzer Pump (USA)
– Pete Noll, Peerless/Labour
– Trey Walters, Applied Flow Technology
– David Wathier, Iwaki-Walchem
– Michael Weigl, Burgmann Seals
“Pump Systems Matter”

Questions?
Questions?
Questions?
Questions?
Questions?
Questions?
Pump Performance
 Total System Evaluation

Meeting the Energy Challenge

Peerless Energy Evaluation Department

P.O. Box 7026
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Tel: 317-925-9661
 Total System Evaluation

A program to help liquid system designers

and operators evaluate energy cost of pumps.
TSE is dynamic working tool to assist you in
meeting this challenge
 Total System Components

Pumps are usually selected for maximum operating efficiency at a given

design point- many times this rating is based on a long term design basis
The system head curve and the pump curve must be developed so that
you can measure the various flows and operating time at each flow at
various intervals
In constant speed pumps this variation in flow is accomplished by
adjusting valves in the system which increases the friction head- creating
wasted energy
This wasted energy can be saved by matching pump performance to
actual system requirements
– Changing impeller diameters
– Changing the motor/pump RPM
 Affinity Laws

Flow varies directly in proportion to the speed

change ration or impeller diameter change
Head varies by the square of the speed change
ratio or the impeller diameter change
BHP varies by the cube of the speed change
ratio or the impeller diameter change
 Evaluation Data

When comparing the energy requirements of

variable speed pumps and constant speed
pumps, three factors must be considered:
– Flow variations in the system
– Head requirements for the various flows
– Flow/time relationship (load profile)
 Flow Variation

The first step in making a pump energy

comparision is to determine maximum and
minimum system flows.
Enter these values in the “System Flow”
section of the Power Comparison Data Form
 Head Requirements

The second step is to determine the individual pressures

which exist in the total system head; friction head and
constant head
– Friction Head: is the pressure required to overcome resistance to
flow in the system piping and fittings
– Constant Head: is the pressure necessary to satisfy any requirement
of the system which does not vary with system flow changes, such as
static head, delivery pressure, and differential pressure./
Enter friction head and constant head values in the “System
Head” section of the Power Comparison Data Form
 Load Profile

The relationship of time and flow is called the load

profile. In most existing systems, hours of operation
at various flows can measured and recorded.
In systems being designed, the load profile must be
calculated or estimated.
Determine the number of flow conditions and hours
of operation at each flow and enter the values in the
“Load Profile” section of the Power Comparison
Data Form.
 Data for Evaluation

In addition to the completed Power

Comparison Data Form, an accurate system
head curve and simple sketch of the piping
system must be made.
Also, provide performance curves for the
existing pumps that are to be considered in
the energy evaluation
 Final Evaluation

With the above completed items and energy

evaluation can be done.
The evaluation will include recommendations for
equipment and comparative operating costs.
Through TSE you will be able to make the final
evaluation of pumping equipment which bests fits
your cost-benefit-functionality requirements
Peerless Pump Professionals are ready to help you
meet the energy challenge through Total System
Evaluation
 Pumping System with Problem
Control Valve

Situation: the fluid control valve fails due to erosion

caused by cavitation. The valve fails every 10-12
months at a cost of 4,000 euros, USD per repair
Currently the control valve operates between 15-
20% open and with considerable cavitation noise
from the valve
It was discovered that the pump was oversized:
110m3/h(485gpm) instead of 80m3/h(350gpm), this
represented in a larger pressure drop across the
control valve than originally intended
 Four Options for
Consideration
A: A new control valve can be installed to
accommodate the high pressure differential
B: The pump impeller can be trimmed so that the pump
does not develop as much head, resulting in a lower
pressure drop across the current valve
C: A variable frequency drive (VFD) can be installed,
and the flow control valve removed. The VFD can
vary the pump speed and thus achieve the desired
process flow
D: The system can be left as it is, with a yearly repair
of the flow control valve to be expected
 Associated Costs

Cost of a new control valve that is properly sized is 5,000

euro(USD)
Cost of trimming the pump impeller is 2,250 euro(USD)
The energy cost is 0.08 euro(USD) per kWh and the motor
efficiency is 90%
The process operates at 80m3/h for 6,000hours/yr
The annual routine costs for maintenance of this type of
equipment is 500 euros(USD) and a repair costs 2,500
euros(USD) every second year
This project has an 8 year life
The interest rate for new capital projects is 8% and inflation
is 4%
 Summary

By trimming the impeller to 375mm (Opt B), the

pump’s head is reduced to 42.0m (138ft) at 80m3/h.
This drop in pressure reduces the differential
pressure across the control valve to less than 10m
(33ft), which better matches the valve’s original
design point
The resulting annual energy cost with the smaller
impeller is 6,720 euro or USD per year.
It costs 2,250 euro or USD to trim the impeller. This
includes the machining costs as well as the cost to
disassemble and reassemble the pump
Variable Frequency Drive on Water Supply
System for
Energy Savings
Variable Frequency Drive on Water Supply System for Energy
Savings
•Existing System
•Description
•Energy Savings Opportunities
•Data Collection

•Design and Savings Calculations

•VFD Pump Curves and System Requirements
•Business Case
•Verification and Conclusion
 Existing System - Description
To Distribution Recirculation

150 hp

250 hp
50 hp
Existing System - Description

Pressure Set Point = 130 psi (300 ft TDH)

Average Flow Requirement = 1000 gpm

 Energy Savings Oppo
Reduce Pressure Set Point

Original Pressure Set Point

130 psi

100 psi Theoretical Savings

Allowable Pressure Set Point

95% of Operating Year
 Energy Savings Oppo
Eliminate Dump Valve

130 psi

Theoretical
Savings
1,000 gpm 1,680 gpm
Average System Original
Demand Pump Output
Chart Recorder – Pressure, Flow North, Flow South

Flow and
Pressure data
was gathered
over a one year
period and
entered into a
table to create a
flow/pressure
demand profile
 Flow Demand Profile
T ota l Flow H ours % ye a r N om H P T ota l U SG
784 129 1.47% 150 6,068,160
1664 7 0.08% 200 698,880
816 32 0.37% 150 1,566,720
1648 19 0.22% 200 1,878,720
2000 19 0.22% 200 2,280,000
2880 7 0.08% 300 1,209,600
1632 168 1.92% 200 16,450,560
1504 168 1.92% 200 15,160,320
1408 168 1.92% 150 14,192,640
1216 168 1.92% 150 12,257,280
 Original Operat

35% Flow Demand

Profile
130 psi

2nd Pump Starts

13%

<5%
 Design and Savings Calculations
VFD60Pump
Hz Curves VFD
and Pump Curves
System & System Requirements
Requirements
63%
54 Hz 75%
81%
50 Hz 86%
46 Hz 100 psi Set Point

49 Hz 2nd Pump
1450 rpm Not Req’d
850 gpm @ 230 ft 99% of year
72 hp
 Design and Saving

Business Case – Original Base Case

January to December 2000
Pump(s) hours kVA kWh Energy $ Demand $
150 hp 8,299 137 964,501 $ 20,447 $ 1,138
200 hp 392 180 60,026 $ 1,273 $ 1,499
250 hp 37 222 6,973 $ 148 $ 1,845
300 hp 32 263 7,162 $ 152 $ 2,191

Max kVA 180 Demand $ 17,986

kWh 1,038,661 Energy $ 21,872
Total $ 39,858
 With VFD and Dem
FLOW
RANGE HOURS kVA kW kWhr Energy $ Demand $
500-600 249 47 45 11181 $ 237 $ 393
601-700 1061 54 51 54518 $ 1,156 $ 450
701-800 3058 61 58 178472 $ 3,784 $ 511
801-900 1220 65 61 74848 $1,587 $ 537
901-1000 380 68 65 24687 $ 523 $ 569
1001-1125 1044 73 70 72855 $ 1,545 $ 611
1126-1250 759 79 75 56918 $ 1,207 $ 657
1251-1500 525 87 83 43361 $ 919 $ 723
1501-1750 362 99 94 34085 $ 723 $ 825
1751-2000 33 120 114 3762 $ 80 $ 998
2001-2500 37 141 134 4960 $ 105 $ 1,174
2501-3000 26 172 164 4260 $ 90 $ 1,435
3001-3500 6 203.8 194 1162 $ 25 $ 1,696
max kVA 99 kWh 565,069 Annual Cost $ 21,727
Design and Savings Calculations – Business Case
Before Installation $ 40,000
After Installation $ 22,000
Annual Savings $ 18,000

Project Cost $ 65,000

Simple Payback 3.6 Years

Incentive Value * $ 26,000

Net Project Cost $ 39,000

Simple Payback
w/ Incentive* 2.2 Years
 * Manitoba Hydro gives technical assistance and financial incentives to
qualifying projects that reduce domestic demand and energy.
Some energy savings projects require financial incentives to make
the business cases more attractive. Typical rates are $5.401 per kVA
and $0.02119 per kWh.
Energy Reduction:
First Year kWh Savings x $ 0.0375
Demand Reduction: Technical assistance
Summer kW Savings x $ 18 and funding grants for
Winter kW Savings x $ 135
feasibility studies are
Incentive Cap: also available.
- Energy savings calculation
- 50% Total Project Cost (up to $ 250,000)
- Payback to 1.5 Years

Reduced domestic demand allows greater

guaranteed contracts for export which help keep the domestic rates low.
QUESTIONS???
 Energy Savings

Power Smart relating to pumps

· 8% losses due to friction
· 1% losses due to bearings
· 20% losses due to throttling
· 6% losses due to motor inefficiencies
· 18% losses to misapplied pumps, not
matched to systems
 Overall only 47% of the energy
consumed is put to useful work

Energy & Maintenance Costs

· 70% of the energy production in industrialized countries
drive electric motors
· 70% of electric motors drive pumps, compressors, fans
· Pumped systems account for 20% of the world’s electric
energy demands
· Energy and maintenance costs during the life of a pump
system is usually at least 10-30X its purchased price
· Just over 1/3 of the motor population accounts for
almost 2/3 of the energy
 Motor Energy by Application looking at
Pumps only

· Chemical 26%
· Paper 31.4%
· Metals 8.7%
· Petroleum 59%
· Food 16.4 %
· Other 19%
 Potential Savings for Pump Systems
by Application:

· Paper 4,728 Gwh

· Chemical 5,676 GWh
· Petroleum 4,627 GWh
· Metals 1,155 GWh
 Life Cycle Costs Example 1:

Pump Initial Cost 14%

· Installation 9%
· Energy 32%
· Maintenance 20%
· Operating 9%
· Downtime 9%
· Environmental 7%
 Life Cycle Costs Example 2

· Pump Initial Cost +/- 5%

· Installation +/- 15%
· Energy +/- 40%
· Maintenance-(parts & labor) +/- 40%
 Survey Results

75% of all engineered pump systems are

estimated to be oversized
A 200hp motor, operating 6000 hours, cost
$60,000/year to operate
 Pump Economics

– In continuous running applications, it cost more

to operate a pump for one year than it does to
buy the pump
– In some cases, a twenty percent reduction in
operating costs can pay for the cost of a pump
in little over a year’s time, as in the following
example:
• Pump cost = $9,000
• Operating cost + $39,000/year
• 20% savings = $7,800/year
• Payback = ($9,000/$7,800) x 12 months = 14
months
 Municipal Sector

A lot of work has been done in the municipal sector,

when looking at pump stations;
One example had a 100Hp pumps operating in an
old system, they added 30Hp pumps and should an
overall yearly savings of 23-43%. Please
note that while energy savings are significant, in
many cases the maintenance savings are at least
that of energy and most times more. The overall
payback is 1.6-1.9 years on these type projects.
 Survey Results

Based on a US DOE report they find that 75-

122 KwH per year can be saved by optimizing
motor driven pump systems. This translates
into a potential savings of $4-6B/year.
Report can be found at
www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/
 www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

The freebies at this site are:

· Optimum pipe sizing and reducing pumping costs with
nomographs for optimum pipe sizing
· Pump System Assessment Tool (software)
· A sourcebook for industry, improving pumping system
performance
Studies for proper pump selection and doing a better job of
matching the pumps to the system have the following results:
· They take 10% more time to design
· They generally result in 10% savings in first cost
· They generally demonstrate 50% savings in the first 5
year LCC
 Process Pump Efficiency

A rule of thumb regarding efficiencies and wear bands is the following:

For every 0.001inch wear in a wear band beyond the factory setting, the
pump is losing between 1.5-2.0% efficiency points.
Therefore a 0.004inch wear in a wear band would mean the pump has
lost somewhere between 6-8% efficiency points.
A typical centrifugal pump with a 10 inch impeller at 3550 rpm would
develop 340 ft in head at about 1300 gpm, with a 78% efficiency the rated
BHP is 143 BHP. Based on continuous operation at $0.10/Kwh the
electric bill for a year would be $93,450.
Based on 0.004 inch wear, the efficiency would be 70-72%, which
translates into rated BHP of 159 HP, with an annual energy bill of
$103,906. This results in wasted energy of over $10,000 a year.
Larry Bachus ISBN# 1856174093, Know and Understand Centrifugal
Pumps
 TSE- Review of What Can Be Done

Design System so that Head Requirements are kept to a Minimum

– Minimize capacity
– Reduce process pressures
– Lower outlet tanks’
– Use siphons
– Reduce nozzle velocities
– Use larger pipes
– Use lower loss fittings
– Eliminate throttle valves
– Computer software programs help greatly in the analysis of piping systems
Avoid Adding Safety Margins to Allow for Wear
– If wear does occur, it may be more cost-effective to replace impeller wear rings after a period
of time than to suffer the increased energy cost resulting from an oversized pump.
Select the Most Efficient Pump Type
Use Variable Speed Drives to Avoid Losses in Throttle Values and Bypass Lines
Consider using Two or More Pumps when Dsigning New Installations
Use Pump0s as Turbines to Recover Pressure Energy
Maintain Your Pumps, Piping and Accessories in Like New Condition
.
 Cl

Peerless Pump Company

2005 Dr. M.L. King Jr. Street, P.O. Box 7026,
Indianapolis, IN 46207-7026, USA
Telephone: (317) 924-7378 Fax: (317) 924-7202
www.peerlesspump.com

LaBour Pump Company

901 Ravenwood Drive, Selma, Alabama 36701
Ph: (317) 925-9661 - Fax: (317) 920-6605
www.labourtaber.com

A Product of Peerless Pump Company Copyright © 2005 Peerless Pump Company