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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Typical Energy Use in Water Utilities

5. Lifecycle costs of a water pump

6. 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

7. Polishing/coating pump surfaces

8. Refurbish or replace? Refurbish $20,000 Replace $60,000 Pump Installed
1963
Duty
66 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 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

9. Selecting a pump

10. The moving System Curve
night
day

11. 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

12. 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.

13. Selecting pumps can be counter-intuitive

14. Variable Speed Pump Performance

15. This affect was seen system wide

16. Pumps operate more efficiently

17. 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

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

22. Flat pump curves can be a problem

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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 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