Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Air Pollution Reductions through Facility Energy Assessments Paula Hemmer North Carolina Division of Air Quality February 11, 2014

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Air Pollution Reductions through Facility Energy Assessments Paula Hemmer North Carolina Division of Air Quality February 11, 2014"— Presentation transcript:

1 Air Pollution Reductions through Facility Energy Assessments Paula Hemmer North Carolina Division of Air Quality February 11, 2014

2 Objectives of the Program Target Audience plant managers, facility operators, and company officials Outreach Message interdependency between air emissions, energy consumption, and energy costs Mitigation Effort voluntary actions to reduce air emissions using Energy Efficiency (EE) a. reduced energy use b. cost savings c. fast pay back time 2 Reporting Assistance educate and assist facilities about multi-pollutant air emission calculations assist facilities with understanding requirements of EPA GHG Reporting Rule

3 Implementation of the energy assessment program by DAQ and our partners Marketing of the energy assessment program Results of the program to date (Summer 2011) Lessons learned Plans for future work 3 Focus of Todays Presentation

4 Why Energy Efficiency? %8% 100% Energy Input Indirect Benefit 30-51% Total Efficiency Direct Benefit Fuel Savings Energy is a significant operating cost (5%) Smart companies have a long-term EE plan EE projects pay for themselves EE is a free air pollution control

5 Energy Assessment Co-Benefits Energy Assessment Gain Process Information Reduce Energy Use Reduce Emissions Less Regulation? Save Money More Capital More Sustainable 5 Example of the Outreach Materials Save Money

6 DAQ Energy Assessment Program 6 Provide reduced-cost energy assessments No facility size or type restrictions Primary Focus – reduce facility energy costs Identify cost-effective projects - payback in less than 2 years mechanical and aerospace ENGINEERING Retired engineers perform the work Program has operated for 20 years Focus on smaller facilities Estimated Savings 200,000 MWh 700,000 MMBtu Professors and students perform work Program has operated for 20 years Assisting facilities of all sizes Average saving of $55,000 per assessment Also provide targeted assessments

7 Outreach on Energy Assessment Process 7 Pre-Assessment Data Collection -> utility bills Site VisitPre-Survey Meeting Conduct survey with facility personnel Long-term data collection Follow-up with questions and initial findings Written Reports within 60 days Recommendations for specific projects and policies Cost/Benefit Analysis Environmental Benefits Understand Financing Options Follow-up Implementation Survey after a year Payback = 2 years

8 Marketing the Program Website Presented the Grant with our Partners at meetings a.North Carolina Manufacturers Association and other industry meetings b.Chamber of Commerce c.Health and Safety and Environmental Meetings d.Energy Efficiency Meetings and Classes Boiler MACT/GACT – letters to facilities subject to rule Regional Office Staff – recommended grant to specific companies Word of Mouth 8 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD = Boiler MACT 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ = Boiler GACT

9 9 Who is Getting an Energy Assessment? Industry No. of Facilities Furniture & Lumber17 Manufacturing8 Chemicals and Plastics5 Textiles5 Food and Tobacco5 Pharmaceuticals2 Paper1 Healthcare2 Museums2 Grand Total47 15 GACT Boilers 5 GACT Boilers Facility subject to GACT Sister facilities received one as well

10 10 Typical Industrial Energy Conservation Measures Type of RecommendationNumberPercentage Gauges & Meters154% Boiler Tune-up288% Steam6819% Stack Loss & Heat Recovery318% Compressor4111% Building Envelope51% HVAC/Chiller113% Lighting9727% Motors205% General - Electric267% Fuel Switching144% Heat Recovery51% Combined Heat & Power (CHP)41% Grand Total365 Data from our grant

11 Breakdown of Commercial Energy Use 11 Type of FacilityHVACLighting Hot Water Process/ Equipment Food PrepOther Office Building40%29%9%15%2%5% School/Education35%28%2%32%0%3% Hotel/Motel25%18%40%4%7%6% Health Care30%16%26%7% 14% Retail Store51%31%7%4%3%4% Restaurant23%15%11%1%45%5% Source: Waste Reduction Partners, as adopted from Handbook of Energy Engineering, 4 th edition, EIA, and NREL 2000

12 Potential Reductions from Program Energy Use Cost Savings and Payback Air Pollution Preliminary Results of Implementation Surveys 12

13 Potential Energy Reductions 13 Electricity 39,403 MWh Fuel Combustion 341,100 MMBtu

14 Average Emissions Reductions per Recommendation 14 Recommendations Biogenic GHG (CO2e lb/yr) GHG (CO2e lb/yr) SO2 (lb/yr) NOx (lb/yr) Stk Loss & Heat Rec. 75, , Steam 75, , Boiler Tune-up 94, , Gauges 37,300 3, Subtotal 281, ,000 1,100 1,570 Building Envelope - 157, HVAC/Chiller - 1,178,000 2, General - Electric - 72, Compressor - 88, Lighting - 196, Motors - 117, Subtotal01,809,0003,7001,240 Grand Total281,9002,700,0004,8002,810

15 Potential Reductions from Energy Efficiency 15 Recommendations Number of Rec. Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Average Capital Cost ($) Average Payback (Months) Electricity MWh Fuel Use MMBtu GHG CO2e ton/yr SO2 ton/yr NOx ton/yr Stk Loss & Heat Rec30$720,000$36, ,00019, Steam59$440,000$7,00017 Boiler Tune-up27$330,000$4,00021 Gauges9$4,000$70026 Heat Recovery5$60,000$30, ,34044,000 14, CHP4$190,000$112,00049 Fuel Switching13$1,100,000$116,00029 Lighting97$1,100,000$25, ,34014,000 19, HVAC/Chiller10$660,000$144,00022 Compressor41$180,000$4,0008 Motors20$270,000$17,00030 General - Electric25$270,000$3,0003 Building Envelope5$40,000$7,0009 Grand Total345$5,370,000$506, ,763341,00053,

16 Impact of Potential Reductions ParameterElectricity Fuel Combustion Total Use in NC138,800,000MWh 1,826,500,000 MMBtu Total Savings Identified57,800MWh 341,100 MMBtu Percent Reduction0.04% 0.02% Parameter All Energy Total NO X Emissions in NC (2011) 63,100Tons Total NO X Reductions Identified60Tons Percent NO X Reduction0.10% 16 Assessments at Only 47 Facilities

17 EE Benefits – Wood Boilers 17 Recommendations Total Energy ReductionsTotal Emissions ReductionsCost TypeNumber Wood MMBtu Electricity kWh Other Fuels* MMBtu Biogenic GHG CO2e (lb/yr) GHG CO2e (lb/yr) NOx (lb/yr) Average Capital Cost ($) Steam2322,00028,0003,0004,430,000560,00012,000$3,000 Boiler Tune-up1112, ,550,00080,0006,000$7,000 Stk Loss & Heat Rec59, ,250,00050,0002,000$10,000 Gauges81, ,00010,000300$900 Fuel Switching66,000280,000-4,0001,010,000-80,0003,000$44,000 Heat Recovery21,500-2, ,00020,000800$29,000 CHP3-20,021600,0000-4,140,000560,000-4,000$63,000 All Electricity75 4,770,000 5,210,0005,000$10,400 Most facilities are only using steam for space heating Payback = 3 years * Natural gas, fuel oil, coal

18 Preliminary Results of Implementation 18 Average Implementation Rate = 53% Parameter Electricity Savings (MWh/yr) Fuel Savings (MMBtu/yr) Cost Savings ($/yr) GHG Reduced CO2e tons/yr Measures Implemented18,73036,420$1,532,60013,120 Measures Recommended37,82080,000 Percentage50%46% 44% 46% Total Project Recommendations57,760341,100$5,324,90053,800 Estimated Project Results28,880156,900$2,557,00025,820 Facility reported electricity costs reduced by 50% after implementing lighting recommendations

19 19 Type of Implementation Count of Implemented Recommendations Electricity Savings (kWh/yr) Fuel Savings (MMBtu/yr) Cost savings ($/yr) Total GHG Reduced CO2e tons /yr Steam12 22,296$141,8841,586 Boiler Tune-up7 3,856$24, Gauges2 405$2,64124 Stk Loss & Heat Rec.1 77$4645 Lighting317,697,988 $464,9084,015 Compressor151,757,504 $78, General-Electric225,959 $55,76814 Motors278,685171$10,96456 Actual EE Savings by Type of Recommendation

20 Lessons Learned Large companies are having an assessment every 5 years Many decision makers are non-technical and have no time Need to express EE projects terms of dollars for Implementation may take several years Lighting and steam reductions have the biggest impact for cost Need to show facilities how to market EE in sustainability reports EE programs can make an impact to air quality over time 20 Decision Maker Employee

21 a. Communicate the importance of EE in reducing air pollution b. Maintain partnerships with NCSU & WRP - assessments & workshops c. Publish case studies to educate facilities d. Encourage lumber & furniture industry to use woodwaste trading programs e. Communicate utility EE rebate opportunities f. Pursue funding of EE implementation 21 Future Plans Paula Hemmer North Carolina Division of Air Quality


Download ppt "Air Pollution Reductions through Facility Energy Assessments Paula Hemmer North Carolina Division of Air Quality February 11, 2014"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google