Presentation to:

How Chilled Water Optimization makes Cogeneration More Effective with a Better Payback
By

Hemant Mehta, P.E.

WM Group Engineers, P.C.

October, 2013

Post Sandy

Challenge our industry Resiliency Answer Micro Grid - CHP Island mode operation

CHP Implementation

Challenge from the bean counters Payback Answer

Improve coincident factor by reducing peak power demand and annual operating costs

CHP Limitation
High electric to thermal demand during summer limits CHP operation. Decreasing the summer electric demand allows best operational scenario for CHP.
ELECTRICAL OUTPUT 29.7%

INPUT 100%

USEFUL ENERGY 74.2%

LOSSES 25.8% THERMAL OUTPUT 44.5% EXHAUST LOSSES 21%

OTHER LOSSES 4.8%

Every Manufacturer has different energy profile

CHP Selection
Reduction in power consumption in summer allows the selection of smaller CHP units with low minimum thermal output optimal in summer

It allows the better unit selection with more operating hours and more energy savings resulting in good payback.
Chilled Water Optimization is a necessary step for CHP operation.

Opportunity - Chilled Water System optimization

1. Power requirements for Chilled water system establish peak summer demand 2. I have yet to see an efficient chilled water system

The reasons of poor design and/or operation or system inefficiencies are:

Design inconsistency of chilled water plant, distribution system and building systems by consulting Engineers Poor Delta T

High Chilled water pump TDH

System hydraulics Inefficient Condenser water system

Band Aid Solutions

Signs of inefficient systems

If your fall and Spring Chilled water Delta T is lower than summer peak delta t If your pumping system is primary/secondary or primary/secondary/tertiary If you have division of responsibility between plant and buildings If your control logic is same as 1970 design

Chilled Water Optimization Pyramid:

Software Operators Training Re-engineering

The Big Picture Why reengineer to primary system?

Lungs
(Chillers)

Brain
(Building End-Users)

Heart
(Variable Volume Primary Pump)

Chilled water system optimization

I realized the power of system optimization in 1984 while working on a project for the Louisville medical Center Lets review some of the case history on how the analysis and reengineering of the existing system reduced electric peak demand, consumptions and saved millions of dollars to the client

Case study Louisville Medical Center

12,000 ton plant could not meet the Cooling requirements

Local consultant recommended Installing 3,000 tons of additional capacity We were called in for peer review Our review indicated that the cooling load was only 8,800 tons Reengineering the plant we regain the capacity and reduced PEAK Power

Case study Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York

World famous cancer treatment hospital campus Four individual chiller plants operating individually Major issues:
Not enough chiller capacity. Client planned to spend millions to add chiller capacity Too much pumping Inefficient operation

Summary of Reengineered system

Interconnected four plants to operate as one system Interconnections eliminated need for a stand by chillers. Old stand by chillers are now available for campus expansion. No need to add additional chillers for a while saving millions of dollars Removed 32 pumps, reduced power by over a megawatt and saved over a million dollars a year in annual cost

Power Reduction MSKCC

19,000 tons CHW production capacity interconnected 32 pumps bypassed 23 pumps demolished $1 million in projected annual energy savings $662,000 NYSERDA funding

Pump Cemetery reduced power by over One MW

Case study Purdue University

System comprised of two chiller plants with a combined capacity of 36,800 Major issues:
Operating capacity was limited to 28,800 tons. Loss of 8,000 tons equates to loss of 16 million dollars Almost 40 percent more chilled water demand than average due to simultaneous heating and cooling Too much pumping

Purdue pumping system issues

Oversized pumps is causing operators to run cars with brakes on.
Design pump dynamic head 310 feet.
Actual requirement 180 feet

Operating constant speed pumps together with variable speed pumps

Cause Variable speed pump can not generate any flow

I observed major valves partially closed all over Balancing is a crime for any dynamic hydraulic system Partially closed valves eats up pump energy for no reason

Purdue pumping system issues

Distribution Observations
Use of Building Pumping Unnecessary, Removed 130 pumps from the buildings. Power reduction 1.1 megawatt
Pressure Wasted by Closing valve Pressure Increased Removed 130 pumps from the buildings

by pump

Summary of optimization at Purdue

Within six weeks of the project, at zero cost reduced peak power by 1.1 Megawatt Removed 130 tertiary pumps Anticipate to reduce annual operating cost by over 3 millions a year

Columbia University Medical Center

Interconnect 3 existing chilled water systems serving 4 buildings (6100 Tons)

Freed up 1,500 tons from stand by capacity No need to purchase chilled water from NY Presbyterian. Saving of over $500,000 per year

Case study US Capitol

Original plant of 28,000 tons designed by my company in 1979 Plant expanded by 15,000 tons by another engineer in 2003 Major issues:
Cut and Paste signature design by other engineer Operating capacity loss of thousands of tons Inefficient operation

Poor Design Incompatible Addition

CH-5
PRIMARY PUMPS

FM

DISTRIBUTION

FM

SECONDARY PUMPS

CH-6

PRIMARY PUMPS

VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD

P
CH-1 CH-2

CH-7

DECOUPLER

CH-3

CH-4

MIN BYPASS

Primary-Constant Speed

Primary/Secondary Variable

Poor Design
Oversized Pumps causing valves to throttle at 60%. Flow above 4000 GPM through the de-coupler.

Division of Responsibility cause of inefficiency

Generation

Utilization

Division of Responsibility
Building connections: Chilled water pressure being utilized improperly at buildings. Valve OPEN
Valve CLOSED Variable Primary Pumping User Buildings

Both Pumps remain OFF

CHILLERS

Farthest Building

Division of Responsibility
Building connections: Chilled water pressure being utilized improperly at buildings. Chilled water flowing through non-operating pump.
Pressure drop:10psi Head Loss: 23 ft At peak load flow of 46,000 GPM, additional power required for Pumps at Chiller Plant is

46000*23/(3960*.8) = 335 HP or 250.2 kW

With equivalent 4000 full load hours, annual energy loss is 1,000,883 kWh At $0.0912/kWh, annual loss is $91,281

Equivalent peak demand savings: 250

kW

Summary of optimization at US Capitol

Provided training to the operators on how to operate plant at optimum efficiency within the given constraints of poor plant design Reduced annual operating costs by $430,000 without spending any money to fix the plant Peak Power Reduction of over 250 KW

Duke CIEMAS Building CHW System

90% closed Triple duty valves 50% closed

Duke CIEMAS Building AHU-9

Balancing valve 50% closed

Duke Levine Science Research Center CHW System

Case study - Benefit of Peer Review

Duke University Project
Plant #1 built in 2000 Final bid docs for Plant #2 were being prepared for construction Our client from Yale asked that we review the Duke project Our peer review reduced significant power consumption and cost by over $2 million. As money was already funded, used to redesign Plant #1.
Before

After

Dark blue pipes replaced old primary pumps

NYU Medical Center (2007)

Four separate chilled water plants Primary/Secondary pumping Needed more chiller capacity

NYU Medical Center (2007)

Interconnected Four plant as One Virtual variable flow primary System. Freed up 3600 tons of stand by capacity 1,300 horsepower of pumps are being removed, including 11 pumps in two brand new chiller plants $300,000 implementation cost and $460,000 annual energy savings

3 Pumps Removed

8 Pumps Removed

7 Pumps Removed

3 Pumps Removed

Case Study - Signature cut and paste design-World Trade Center

Central CHW Plant & River Water Systems Design
Design of 12,500 ton central chiller plant and site CHW distribution system serving multiple buildings. Design of river water system and river water pump house restoration. System connected to six different buildings Memorial plant machine room only one floor above the plant Memorial building Engineers installed secondary pumps event though plant pumps were design to pump water to a mile away Convincing the engineer to install by-pass reduced peak demand

Case Study - MIT

Chilled Water System Master Plan & Plant Expansion
Master Plan Evaluation of system operations Design of Central Plant cooling tower replacement
Plant Expansion Installation of two 5000 ton steam turbine driven chillers, pumps, cooling towers and auxiliaries

Off-line System Optimization Package

MIT
CHILLER PLANT ENERGY USE
Sy s ka & Hennes s y Modif ic ations 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7

Modifications

CHW PLANT STEAM

Case study IBM Corporation

Chilled Water Plant Upgrade
$12 million upgrade program to increase existing plant cooling capacity.

Performed comprehensive hydraulic analysis and identified flow restrictions and pump deficiencies, enabling further capacity increase by 2000 tons.
REDUCED DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION AND ENERGY COST BY 20%

Case Study NY Presbyterian Hospital

Uptown Facilities

Chilled water systems optimization

New York Presbyterian Hospital
(Tuesday, July 30, 2002)

Saved over $500,000 per year

11,750

Operational Modification (~ 650 KW Savings)

Demand (KW)

Now peak cooling day demand is met by 4 chillers compared to six prior to modification 650 kW demand savings

11,500

11,250

11,000

10,750

10,500

10,250

10,000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time of Day

Case study Amgen Inc.

Identification of Bottlenecks Two close valves created the blocked area which increases the increased in pump head. Identification and elimination of bottlenecks reduced thousands of dollars in operating cost. Reduction in Power Demand and Consumption Annual Energy Cost Savings: $ 500,000

Case Study Bristol Myers Squibb

Variable Primary Conversion
42 pumps removed Control system overhauled DT Improvement Gained over 2,000 tons of additional capacity Peak Demand reduction by One Megawatt $400,000 operational energy cost savings per year

How does delta T affect Power?

Compressor Energy (Ce):

DP Ce m
Refrigerant mass flow:

200 m RE
RE: Refrigerant effect increases as T increases. Mass flow rate decreases with increase in T Hence compressor power decreases with increase in T. Low T reduces chiller capacity and more chillers need to be operated.

How do you improve delta T?

Controlling the chilled water flow through the chillers Use of new control technology at AHUs.

Case Study PA State Capitol Complex

Increased the delta T, reducing the flow requirement thereby reducing power consumption and demand.

System Evaluation Process

Site survey
Collect trended data from historian Determine health of system Analytics

Implement no-cost measures.

Quantify savings. Analyze and prioritize energy conservation measures

System Evaluation Process

Site Survey Thorough documentation of complete chilled water system schematic Gather all equipment data Record operating parameters, flows, pressures, temperatures Review previous reports Interview Operators

System Evaluation Process

Analytics

System Evaluation Process

Analytics Example: Pump Mapping

System Evaluation Process

Analytics Example: Chiller Mapping (Determine Sweet Spots)

System Evaluation Process

Analytics Example: Cooling Tower Mapping
Determine actual tower minimum flow rate

System Evaluation Process

Analytics Example: Water Quality
March 2013

August 2012

February 2013

December 2012

System Evaluation Process

Analytics Example: Bottleneck (Orifice Plate)

(ECM 5.1) Wade Plant Re-Engineering

(5.1.1) Series Configuration for Chillers 9-10
Upstream Chiller sees lower lift (150 Ton Improved Chiller Capacity) Lower CHWST during peak conditions (500 Ton Improved Dist. Capacity)

$34,700 Annual Savings

System Evaluation Process

8760 Hour Analysis of Measures

Base Case
Month Cooling Load (Tons) 73,253 434,587 2,366,054 2,035,622 3,439,051 4,078,799 5,617,310 4,075,679 3,999,653 2,134,784 1,401,126 1,529,842 31,185,761 Total Chiller Total CHPW Power Power (kWH) (kWh) 42,481 242,603 1,170,524 1,006,826 1,703,912 2,006,957 2,807,070 2,097,100 1,963,882 1,071,904 732,718 785,992 15,631,968 5,583 30,942 136,124 114,011 207,288 228,190 315,648 227,470 231,896 108,340 66,521 85,692 1,757,704 CW Pump CT Fan Power Power (kWH) (kWH) 16,023 83,880 259,735 225,773 333,584 350,618 440,303 361,732 354,066 222,158 173,286 200,029 3,021,188 4,522 11,545 54,696 83,751 157,903 224,666 291,414 245,651 193,669 76,515 49,594 5,886 1,399,813 Cost ($)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

$3,430 $18,449 $81,054 $71,518 $120,134 $140,522 $192,722 $146,598 $137,176 $73,946 $51,106 $53,880 $1,090,534

ECM - CWP VFD or Impeller Change

Month Total Chiller Total CHPW Cooling Power Power Load (Tons) (kWH) (kWh) 73,253 434,587 2,366,054 2,035,622 3,439,051 4,078,799 5,617,310 4,075,679 3,999,653 2,134,784 1,401,126 1,529,842 31,185,761 42,481 242,603 1,170,524 1,006,826 1,703,912 2,006,957 2,807,070 2,097,100 1,963,882 1,071,904 732,718 785,992 15,631,968 5,583 30,942 136,124 114,011 207,288 228,190 315,648 227,470 231,896 108,340 66,521 85,692 1,757,704 CW Pump CT Fan Power Power (kWH) (kWH) 11,572 60,580 187,587 163,058 240,922 253,224 317,997 261,251 255,714 160,447 125,151 144,465 2,181,969 4,522 11,545 54,696 83,751 157,903 224,666 291,414 245,651 193,669 76,515 49,594 5,886 1,399,813 Cost ($)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

$3,208 $17,284 $77,447 $68,382 $115,501 $135,652 $186,606 $141,574 $132,258 $70,860 $48,699 $51,102 $1,048,573

System Evaluation Process

Hydraulic Modeling

Summary: How to get power reduction and get your system in shape
1. Keep operating logs; have logs reviewed by an expert
2. Dont be afraid of change; use state-of-the-art technology 3. Interchange operating personal between plant and buildings, or cross training 4. Provide System training to operators 5. Convert HVAC controls to process controls

Case study - Lack of Training - Simultaneous Heating & Cooling

OAT: 45

Temp Set: 56 Actual

Mixed Air Temp: 54

Temp: 58

Valve leak, Pre heat temp: 59

Overheating of air Cooling Valve: 42% open to cool air to set temp.

Operators Training
Training the operators for systems operation yields maximum plant savings. Systems knowledge eliminates the fear of operation thus eliminating redundant system/product operations. Empowers operators to take knowledgeable decisions during plant operation.

How can We help you

Check the health of your central utility infrastructure
Email me the following
Plant operating logs equipment design data Copies of fuel and power bills for one year

We will review documents and provide a report on the health of your system and opportunities for system optimization at NO COST to you

Achievements

IDEA Lifetime Membership Award: Feb. 2013

IDEA Person of Year Award: June 2013

Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) Region I Energy Engineer of the Year: Oct. 2011

Thank You
Hemant Mehta, P.E. President

WM Group Engineers, P.C.

(646) 827-6400
[email protected] www.wmgroupeng.com