Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSleetmute Heat Recovery Project Energy Audit - Aug 2011 - REF Grant 70508481 Comprehensive Energy Audit For Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant Prepared For Sleetmute TradiƟonal Council August 1, 2011 Prepared By: ANTHC-DEHE Energy Projects Group 1901 Bragaw, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99508 2 Table of Contents 1. ExecuƟve Summary 3 2. Audit and Analysis Background 5 3. Building DescripƟon 7 4. Energy Efficiency Measures 14 5. Energy Efficiency AcƟon Plan 20 Appendix A List of Energy ConservaƟon and Renewable Energy Websites PREFACE The Energy Projects Group at the Alaska NaƟve Tribal Health ConsorƟum (ANTHC) prepared this document for the Sleetmute TradiƟonal Council. The authors of this report are Carl H. Remley, CerƟfied Energy Auditor (CEA) and CerƟfied Energy Manager (CEM), Chris Mercer, PE and CEA, and Gavin Dixon. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive document that summarizes the findings and analysis that resulted from an energy audit conducted over the past couple months by the Energy Projects Group of ANTHC. This report analyzes historical energy use and idenƟfies costs and savings of recommended energy efficiency measures. Discussions of site specific concerns and an Energy Efficiency AcƟon Plan are also included in this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Energy Projects Group gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Kenneth Mellick, Sleetmute Water Plant Operator. 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the Sleetmute TradiƟonal Council. The scope of the audit focused on Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant. The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighƟng systems, process loads, HVAC systems, and plug loads. Based on electricity and fuel oil prices in effect at the Ɵme of the audit, the annual energy cost for the building analyzed was $5,584 for electricity and $13,500 for #1 fuel oil. This results in a annual energy cost of $19,084 per year. It should be noted that this facility received a power cost equalizaƟon (PCE) subsidy last year. If it did not receive the PCE, the annual electricity cost would have been $11,896 and the total annual energy cost would have been $25,396. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant. Listed are the esƟmates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Standby generator heating Shut off generator heat since the generator has not been used in years. $406 $0 >100 0.0 2 Other Electrical: Circulation Pumps Shut off the circulation pumps an additional 30 days per year in the summer $470 $0 >100 0.0 3 Other Electrical: Tank Heat Circulation Pumps Shut off the circulation pumps an additional 30 days per year in the summer $52 $0 >100 0.0 4 Heating and Domestic Hot Water Convert the boiler from a always hot to a run on demand by any of the three zones, the potable water tank, or the circulation loop only. This can be accomplished with a fairly simple boiler controller. Also, shut off the boiler and Toyotomi Laser 73 an additional 30 days per year. $2,225 $5,000 8.59 2.2 5 Setback Thermostat: Water Treatment Plant Implement a heating temperature unoccupied setback to 50.0 deg F for the water treatment plant space. $50 $200 3.75 4.0 4 Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 6 Setback Thermostat: Washeteria (Unused) Implement a heating temperature unoccupied setback to 50.0 deg F for the washeteria (unused) space. $12 $100 1.74 8.6 7 Lighting: Exterior Lighting Replace with 2 LED 17W wall-packs $70 $400 1.53 5.7 8 Implement Heat Recovery from Power Plant Add heat recovery from the power plant to the water plant by adding the recovered heat to the circulation loop and then taking some of that heat and using it to heat the potable water storage tank. $8,646 $120,000 1.10 13.9 TOTAL, all measures $11,931 $125,700 1.47 10.5 Table Notes: 1 Savings to Investment RaƟo (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a e SIR is an indicaƟon of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effecƟve project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the posiƟon of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 2 Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of Ɵme required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counƟng interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual uƟlity cost can be reduced by $11,931 per year, or 62.5% measures are esƟmated to cost $125,700, for an overall simple payback period of 10.5 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as space heaƟng and water heaƟng. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. 5 Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost EsƟmate DescripƟon Space HeaƟng Space Cooling Water HeaƟng LighƟng Other Electrical Generator Heat CirculaƟon Water Storage & CirculaƟon Vent. Fans Service Fees Total ExisƟng Building $3,369 $0 $0 $220 $5,310 $426 $9,759 $0 $0 $19,084 With All Proposed Retrofits $1,144 $0 $0 $150 $4,747 $0 $1,113 $0 $0 $7,153 SAVINGS $2,225 $0 $0 $70 $564 $426 $8,646 $0 $0 $11,931 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to idenƟfy, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant. The scope of this project included evaluaƟng building shell, lighƟng and other electrical systems, and HVAC equipment, motors and pumps. Measures were analyzed based on life-cycle-cost techniques, which include the iniƟal cost of the equipment, life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflaƟon. 2.2 Audit Description Preliminary audit informaƟon was gathered in preparaƟon for the site survey. The site survey provides criƟcal informaƟon in deciphering where energy is used and what opportuniƟes exist within a building. The enƟre site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each building operates: Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) HeaƟng, venƟlaƟon, and air condiƟoning equipment (HVAC) LighƟng systems and controls Building-specific equipment The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit included detailed inspecƟon of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operaƟng and maintenance pracƟces, and ene rgy management programs provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumpƟon. Details collected from Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant consumpƟon by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves 6 disƟnguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumpƟon in different acƟvity areas of the building. In addiƟon, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the building. These factors are used in the construcƟon of the model of energy used. The factors include: 2.3. Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use SoŌ ware to esƟmate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendaƟons focus on the building envelope; HVAC; lighƟng, plug load, and other electrical improvements; and motor and pump systems that will reduce annual energy consumpƟon. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate condiƟons, building construcƟon type, funcƟon, operaƟonal schedule, exisƟng condiƟons, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering esƟmaƟons. Our analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effecƟveness of various improvement opƟons. These tools uƟlize Life-Cycle CosƟng, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that esƟmates the total cost of a project over the period of Ɵme that includes both the construcƟon cost and ongoing maintenance and operaƟng costs. Savings to Investment RaƟo (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices as projected by the Department of Energy are included. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the Ɵme-value of money (i.e. mo Investment in the SIR calculaƟon includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effecƟve total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expe cted Ɵme before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback Ɵme is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater than the project life. The Simple Payback calculaƟon does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offseƫ ng simplificaƟon, simple payback does not consider the 7 need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the Ɵme-value of money). Because of these simplificaƟons, the SIR figure is considered to be a beƩer financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. Measures are implemented in order of cost-effecƟveness. The program first calculates individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut. Next the building is modified and re- simulated with the highest ranked measure included. Now all remaining measures are re- evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost-effecƟve measure is implemented. AkWarm goes through this iteraƟve process unƟl all appropriate measures have been evaluated and installed. It is important to note that the savings for each recommendaƟon is calculated based on implemenƟng the most cost effecƟve measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the next most cost effecƟve measure. ImplementaƟon of more than one EEM oŌen affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relaƟvely higher if an individual EE M is implemented in lieu of mulƟple recommended EEMs. For example implemenƟng a reduced operaƟng schedule for inefficient lighƟng will result in relaƟve ly high savings. ImplemenƟng a reduced operaƟng schedule for newly installed efficient lighƟng will result in lower relaƟve savings, because the efficient lighƟng system uses less energy during each hour of operaƟon . If AkWarm calculates the combined savings appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on esƟmated iniƟal costs for each measure. InstallaƟon costs include labor and equipment to esƟmate the full up-front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publicaƟons, and local contract ors and equipment suppliers. 2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximaƟon. In some instances, several methods may achieve the idenƟfied savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendaƟons shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. 3. Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant 3.1. Building Description The 693 square foot Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant was constructed in 1990. It has a normal occupancy of 1 person. The number of hours of operaƟon for this building average 1.7 hours per day, considering all seven days of the week. The building consists of the water treatment plant, the unused washeteria, and the mechanical room. The building is mounted on pads, has a 2 X 12 floor joist with R38 insulaƟon, 6 inch studded walls with R19 insulaƟon and an eight inch sloped roof with a cathedral ceiling and 8 inches of insulaƟon. 8 The building has one small double pane window and the two insulated steel doors. It has one door for the water treatment plant and one door for the unused washeteria. Overall, the building is in fair condiƟon. A heated water storage tank is located next to the water treatment plant. Within the water treatment plant is all the process equipment necessary to treat the raw well water and the pumps necessary to both circulate the water throughout the village and maintain system pressure. A back-up generator is located next to the water plant as well. The generator is kept warm with heat off the boilers even though it has not been used for years. DescripƟon of HeaƟng Plant The HeaƟng Plants used in the building are: Toyotomi Laser 73 Nameplate InformaƟon: L 73 Toyostove has three firing rates, 40,000, 27,000, and 15,000 btu/hr Fuel Type: #1 Oil Input RaƟng: 40,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 87 % Idle Loss: 1 % Heat DistribuƟon Type: Air Notes: This heater is located in the WTP as are three unit heaters that run off the boilers. Weil McLain 480 Boilers (Two idenƟcal boilers) Fuel Type: #1 Oil Input RaƟng: 396,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 83 % Idle Loss: 3 % Heat DistribuƟon Type: Water Boiler OperaƟon: Sep - May Space HeaƟng DistribuƟon Systems The Laser 73 is located in the water treatment plant and used to heat that area of the building. There are also three boiler fed unit heaters in the water treatment plant. The old washeteria is heated with baseboard from the boilers and the mechanical room is heated by a combinaƟon of convecƟon and radiaƟon off the boilers. The largest load on the boilers is heaƟng the potable water storage tank and the potable water circulaƟon loop. 9 DomesƟc Hot Water System The hot water system was designed for washeteria use. Since the washeteria is no longer used, hot water consumpƟon is very small. Waste Heat Recovery InformaƟon No heat recovery from the power plant to the water treatment plant presently exists. DescripƟon of Building VenƟlaƟon System The exisƟng building venƟlaƟon system consists of louvered forced air vents. The system is in disrepair and should be fixed to allow proper operaƟon. The primary funcƟon of the ven ƟlaƟon system is to control humidity and associated condensaƟon. A second venƟlaƟon system serves the mechanical room. The main purpose of this second system is to exhaust excess heat from the boilers. LighƟng The exisƟng interior lighƟng consists of fourteen two lamp fluorescent fixtures with standard ballasts and 32 waƩ T8 lamps. The exisƟng exterior lighƟng consists of two 100 waƩ metal halide fixtures. Plug Loads The exisƟng plug loads are minimal and normal for a water treatment plant. Major Equipment The major equipment is that used for the treatment, storage and circulaƟon of potable water. It consists mainly of filters, pumps, and the potable water storage tank. The washeteria equipment is no longer used. 3.2 Predicted Energy Use 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the building. If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. The electric uƟlity measures consumpƟon in kilowaƩ -hours (KWH). One kWh usage is equivalent to 1,000 waƩ s running for one hour. The basic usage charges are shown as generaƟon service and delivery charges along with several non-uƟlity generaƟon charges. 10 The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building. Fuel oil consumpƟon is measured in gallons. One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy. Electricity for the facility is provided by the Middle Kuskokwim Electric CooperaƟve. The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1. This figure includes all surcharges, subsidies, and uƟlity customer charges: Table 3.1 Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost Electricity $ 0.23/KWH #1 Oil $ 6.00/gallon 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, Sleetmute TradiƟonal Council pays approximately $19,084 annually for electricity and fuel oil for the Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant. Figure 3.1 below reflects the esƟmated distribuƟon of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm© computer simulaƟon. Comparing the figure shows the potenƟal savings from implemenƟng all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 3.1 Annual Energy Costs by End Use Figure 3.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different building as it is report are implemented. Space HeaƟng Other Electrical LighƟng Generator Heat CirculaƟon Water Storage and DistribuƟon 11 Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type Figure 3.3 below addresses only Space HeaƟng costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heaƟng cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heaƟng cost for the exisƟng building is shown (blue bar) and the space heaƟng cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. Figure 3.3 Annual Space HeaƟng Cost by Component the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Recovered Heat from power plant #1 Oil Electricity 12 Electrical ConsumpƟon (KWH) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec LighƟng 97 88 97 94 73 48 50 50 72 97 94 97 Other Electrical 2702 2462 2702 2615 1555 465 480 480 1611 2702 2615 2702 Generator Heat CirculaƟon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Storage and CirculaƟon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VenƟlaƟon Fans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DomesƟc Hot Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Space HeaƟng 23 20 22 22 15 14 15 15 22 22 22 22 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil #1 ConsumpƟon (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Generator Heat CirculaƟon 8 7 8 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 Water Storage and CirculaƟon 185 168 185 179 185 0 0 0 179 185 179 185 DomesƟc Hot Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Space HeaƟng 71 63 69 67 2 2 2 2 67 69 67 71 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) uƟlizaƟon per square foot of building. This calculaƟon is completed by converƟng all uƟlity usage consumed by a building for one year, to BriƟsh Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good meas comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge NaƟonal Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website in a specific region or state. energy consumpƟon with the naƟonal average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and producƟon losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of uƟlity purchased has a substanƟal impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluaƟon purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI raƟngs for the building ar e provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 3.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel oil Usage in kBtu + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS RaƟo + Fuel oil Usage in kBtu X SS RaƟo + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage 13 to Site Energy raƟo for the parƟcular fuel. Table 3.4 Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant EUI CalculaƟons Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site RaƟo Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 24,278 KWH 82,861 3.340 276,756 #1 Oil 2,250 gallons 297,000 1.010 299,970 Total 379,861 576,726 BUILDING AREA 693 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 548 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 832 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source RaƟo data is provided by the Energy Star Performance RaƟng Methodology for IncorporaƟng Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulaƟng the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounƟng for the outside air venƟlaƟon required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the uƟlity bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulaƟon, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusƟng outside air venƟlaƟon and adding cogeneraƟon systems. For the purposes of this study, the Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant was modeled using AkWarm© energy use soŌware to establish a baseline space heaƟng and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Sleetmute was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoreƟcal energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a parƟcular measure were predicted and the iniƟal capital cost was esƟmated, payba ck scenarios were approximated. LimitaƟons of AkWarm© Models The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Sleetmute. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the fuel oil and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing informaƟon from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heaƟng load model is a simple two- 14 buildings that have large variaƟons in cooling/heaƟng loads across different parts of the building. The energy balances shown in SecƟon 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm© simulaƟons. 4 . ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES 4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1. Please refer to the individual measure descripƟons later in this report for more detail. Table 4.1 Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant, Sleetmute, Alaska PRIORITY LIST ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Standby generator heating Shut off generator heat since the generator has not been used in years $406 $0 >100 0.0 2 Other Electrical: Circulation Pumps Shut off the circulation pumps an additional 30 days per year $470 $0 >100 0.0 3 Other Electrical: Tank Heat Circulation Pumps Improve Manual Switching $52 $0 >100 0.0 4 Heating and Domestic Hot Water Convert the boiler from an always hot to a run on demand by any of the three zones, the potable water tank, or the circulation loop only. This can be accomplished with a fairly simple boiler controller. Also, shut off the boiler and Toyotomi Laser 73 an additional 30 days per year. $2,225 $5,000 8.59 2.2 5 Setback Thermostat: Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 50.0 deg F for the Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant space. $50 $200 3.75 4.0 6 Setback Thermostat: Washeteria (Unused) Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 50.0 deg F for the Washeteria (Unused) space. $12 $100 1.74 8.6 7 Lighting: Exterior Lighting Replace with 2 LED 17W wall-packs $70 $400 1.53 5.7 15 Table 4.1 Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant, Sleetmute, Alaska PRIORITY LIST ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 8 Implement Heat Recovery from Power Plant Add heat recovery from the power plant to the water plant by adding the recovered heat to the circulation loop and then taking some of that heat and using it to heat the potable water storage tank. $8,646 $120,000 1.10 13.9 TOTAL, all measures $11,931 $125,700 1.47 10.5 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a parƟcular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that measure in the list are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected. For example, if ceiling insulaƟon is not added, then savings from a project to replace the heaƟng system will be increased, because the heaƟng system for the building supplies a larger load. In general, all projects are evaluated sequenƟally so energy savings associated with one EEM would not also be aƩ ributed to another EEM. By modeling the recommended project sequenƟally, the analysis accounts for interacƟve affects among the EEMs an Interior lighƟng, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore, lighƟng efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air-condiƟoned buildings. Conversely, lighƟng-efficiency improvements are anƟcipated to slightly increase heaƟng requirements. HeaƟng penalƟes and cooling benefits were included in the lighƟng project analysis. 4.3 Heating Measures 4.3 .1. EEM Heating Plants and Distribution Systems A heaƟng system is expected to last approximately 20-25 years, depending on the system. If the system is nearing the end of its life, it is beƩ er to replace it sooner rather than later to avoid being without heat for several days when it fails. This way, you will have Ɵme to compare bids, check references and ensure the contractors are bonded and insured. RecommendaƟon: Convert the boilers from an always hot to a run on demand by any of the three zones, the potable water tank, or the circulaƟon loop only. This can be accomplished with a fairly simple boiler controller and a control panel. Also, shut off the boiler and Toyotomi Laser 73 an addiƟonal 30 days per year. EsƟmated Cost: $5,000 EsƟmate Savings per Year: $2,225 16 Energy Auditor Comments: This EEM will require both a plumber and an electrician to implement. It is recommended that it be implemented at the same Ɵme as the heat recovery to minimize travel costs. 4.3.1.1. EXISTING SYSTEMS 4.3.1.1.1 Toyotomi Laser 73 DescripƟon: L 73 Toyostove has three firing rates, 40,000, 27,000, and 15,000 btu/hr heaƟng plant fueled by #1 Fuel Oil, with a forced Induced draŌ . Size : 40,000 BTU/h Efficiency (Steady State & Idle): 87% PorƟon of heat supplied by this unit: 70% Notes: This heater is located in the WTP as are three unit heaters that run off the boilers. 4.3.1.1.2 Weil McLain 480 Boilers (2 idenƟcal) DescripƟon: HeaƟng plant fueled by #1 fuel oil, with a natural draŌ. Size : 396,000 BTU/hr Efficiency (Steady State & Idle): 83% PorƟon of heat supplied by this unit: 100% Notes: These boilers are located in the mechanical room. 4.3.1.1.3 Mechanical Room Notes: The mechanical room is heated by the convecƟon and radiaƟon losses off the boiler. 4.3.1.1.4 Water treatment plant Notes: The water treatment plant is heated by a combinaƟon of the boiler and the Laser 73. Notes: The washeteria is heated by the boiler but is not in use at this Ɵme. 4.3.1.2. PROPOSED SYSTEMS 4.3.1.2.1 Toyotomi Laser 73 DescripƟon: L 73 Toyostove has three firing rates, 40,000, 27,000, and 15,000 btu/hr heaƟng plant fueled by #1 Fuel Oil, with a Forced Induced draŌ. Size : 40,000 BTU/Hr Efficiency (Steady State & Idle): 87% PorƟon of heat supplied by this unit: 70% Notes: This heater is located in the WTP as are three unit heaters that run off the boilers. 4.3.1.2.2 Weil McLain 480 Boiler DescripƟon: heaƟng plant fueled by #1 Fuel Oil, with a Natural draŌ . Size: 396,000 BTU/Hr Efficiency (Steady State & Idle): 83% PorƟon of heat supplied by this unit: 100% Notes: 17 4.3.1.2.3 Mechanical Room Notes: The mechanical room is heated by the convecƟon and radiaƟon losses off the boiler. 4.3.1.2.4 Water treatment plant Notes: The water treatment plant is heated by a combinaƟon of the boiler and the Laser 73. 4.3.1.2.5 Washeteria Notes: The washeteria is heated by the boiler but is not in use at this Ɵme. 4.3.2 Programmable Thermostats Location Existing Situation Recommended Improvement Install Cost Annual Savings Notes Sleetmute Water Treatment Plant ExisƟng Unoccupied HeaƟng Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a heaƟng temperature unoccupied Setback to 50.0 deg F for the Water Treatment Plant space. $200 $50 Washeteria (Unused) ExisƟng Unoccupied HeaƟng Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a heaƟng temperature unoccupied Setback to 50.0 deg F for the washeteria (Unused) space. $100 $12 4.4 LIGHTING UPGRADES The goal of this secƟon is to present any lighƟng energy conservaƟon measures that may also be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heaƟng and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heaƟng load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. 4.4 .1 Lighting Upgrade Replace Existing Fixtures and Bulbs Location Existing Lighting Recommended Improvement Install Cost Annual Savings Notes Exterior LighƟng 2 MH 100 WaƩ MagneƟc with Photocell Replace with 2 LED 17W wall- packs $400 $70 Replace the two 100 waƩ metal halide exterior light fixtures with new 17 waƩ LED wallpacks. DescripƟon: This EEM includes replacement of the exi sƟng fixtures containing a 100waƩ metal halide lamp and magneƟc ballasts with fixtures containing a 17 waƩ LED lamp. The new energy efficient, LED fixtures will provide adequate lighƟng and will save the owner on electrical costs due to the beƩ er performance of the lamp. There is no ballast. This EEM will also provide maintenance savings through the reduced number of lamps replaced per year. The expected lamp life of a 18 LED lamp is approximately 50,000 burn-hours, in comparison to the exisƟng metal halide lamp which is approximately 15,000 burn-hours. 4.5 Back Up Generator Location Life in Years Description Recommendation Cost Savings Notes 15 Generator Heat Shut off generator heat since the generator has not been used in years. $0 $406 During the audit, the water plant operator menƟoned that the back-up generator has not been started for many years, probably would not run if the operator tried to start it, and the operator does not see a Ɵme in the future when it would be used. If this is the case, there is no reason to conƟnue to heat it. 4.6 Heat Recovery Location Life in Years Energy Source Description Recommendation Cost Savings Notes Water Treatment Plant 15 Power Plant Add heat recovery from the power plant to the water plant by adding the recovered heat to the circulaƟon loop and then taking some of that heat and using it to heat the potable water storage tank. $120,000 $8,646 An analysis of both the waste heat available from the power plant and the heat needed by the water plant for process loads such as the potable water tank and the potable water circulaƟon loop indicate that this would project would significantly reduce the fuel oil consumed by the water treatment plant. The analysis shows that the savings would be approximately $8,646 annually and that the oil consumpƟon would be reduced by approximately 2,068 gallons per year. ImplementaƟon of this project would require some design effort. Based on the many projects completed recently by the Energy Projects Group of ANTHC, the design would cost approximately $25,000. The power plant is located too far from the water treatment plant to run recovered heat lines between them. Another method used oŌen is to locate a heat exchanger in the power plant and run heat recovery lines from the power plant to the nearest water line outside the power plant. This is feasible in Sleetmute. Another heat exchanger would then be located in the water treatment plant and some of the heat would be extracted from the loop and used to heat 19 the potable water tank. These two uses comprise the majority of the heat load in the water treatment plant. 4.7 Other Electrical Location Life in Years Description Recommendation Cost Savings Notes CirculaƟon Pumps 7 Potable Water CirculaƟon Pumps with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching $0 $470 Shut off potable water circulaƟon heat 30 days sooner. Tank Heat CirculaƟon Pumps 7 CirculaƟon Pumps for Storage Tank Heat with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching $0 $52 Shut off potable water circulaƟon pumps thirty days sooner. 5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN Through inspecƟon of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site faciliƟes personnel, this energy audit has idenƟfied several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead Ɵme for engineering and equipment acquisiƟon. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implemenƟng EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same contractor is used to install both the heat recovery and the mechanical room upgrades, implementaƟon of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. APPENDIX AƩ ached to this report is Appendix A. The objecƟve of appendix A is to provide the Tribal Council with a wide range of energy conservaƟon and renewable energy websites to further your knowledge. 20 Appendix A LisƟng of Energy ConservaƟon and Renewable Energy Websites LighƟng IlluminaƟon Engineering Society -hƩ p://www.iesna.org/ Energy Star Compact Fluorescent LighƟng Program - www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls DOE Solid State LighƟng Program - hƩ p://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/ DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - hƩp://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_workplace/ Energy Star hƩ p://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=lighƟng.pr_lighƟng Hot Water Heaters Heat Pump Water Heaters - hƩp://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heaƟng/index.cfm/mytopic=12840 Solar Water HeaƟng FEMP Federal Technology Alerts hƩ p://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/FTA_solwat_heat.pdf Solar RadiaƟon Data Manual hƩ p://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook Plug Loads DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy hƩp:apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your workplace/ Energy Star hƩ p://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseacƟon=find_a_product The Greenest Desktop Computers of 2008 - hƩ p://www.metaefficient.com/computers/the-greenest-pcs-of- 2008.html Wind AWEA Web Site hƩ p://www.awea.org NaƟonal Wind CoordinaƟng CollaboraƟve hƩp:www.naƟonalwind.org UƟlity Wind Interest Group site: hƩ p://www.uwig.org WPA Web Site hƩ p://www.windpoweringamerica.gov Homepower Web Site: hƩ p://homepower.com Windustry Project: hƩp://www.windustry.com Solar NREL hƩ p://www.nrel.gov/rredc/ Firstlook hƩp://firstlook.3Ɵergroup.com 21 TMY or Weather Data hƩ p://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-2005/tmy3/ State and UƟlity IncenƟves and UƟlity Policies - hƩp://www.dsireusa.org