Diesel Pumping Efficiency Program A Multi-Purpose Resource Management Program Helping California to - Clean the Air - Conserve Water - Conserve Energy 1 Peter Canessa Program Manager 2 M.S. Irrigation and Drainage Registered Agricultural Engineer in California 30 Years in Ag Water and Energy Management Teaching at Cal Poly SLO & CSU Fresno
10 yrs consulting in Ag energy efficiency programs for PG&E Irrigation scheduling and system design software Non-point source pollution reduction/control programs Water conservation program design and implementation Consultant to San Diego County Water Authority in IIDSDCWA water transfer NSW, Australia on-farm and irrigation district-level water management improvements Program Manager Ag Peak Load Reduction Program Program Manager Ag Pumping Efficiency Program Center for Irrigation Technology
Hydraulic Laboratory Testing Applied Research Special Projects Education A part of: College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, California State University at Fresno 3 Todays discussion 1. Thesis Supporting the Diesel Pumping Efficiency Program 2. Design and Implementation of the DPEP 3.
Results from the Pilot-Level DPEP 4. Verification of Emissions Reductions 4 Diesel Pumping Efficiency Program A multi-purpose resource management program for: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 Air Quality Energy Conservation Water Conservation Water Quality
DPEP How does it do this? 1. 2. Improving the overall pumping plant efficiency Improving management of the plant In other words 6 Get more water production for every gallon of diesel burned and Thus, decrease emissions per unit water produced, while Minimizing the amount of water pumped DPEP The Foundation Thesis
The pumping plant is a SYSTEM of 3 mechanical components and one human component 1. 2. 3. 4. The engine itself (up to ~30 35% efficient) Power transmission - driveshaft, v-belts, right-angle drives, etc. (up to ~95 97% efficient) The pump itself (up to ~75 85% efficient) Management 7 Specification/design of the pumping plant Maintenance of the pumping plant Operation of the pumping plant
DPEP Foundation Thesis To the extent that there are INEFFICIENCIES in any one of these components then emissions are increased 8 1. Emissions per unit water are increased inefficient hardware 2. Pumping time is increased inefficient management DPEP Focus the PUMP itself An efficient pump will produce more water per gallon of diesel consumed than an inefficient pump
Thus, an efficient pump results in less emissions per unit water produced An efficient pump is like an efficient engine no matter how long it is run, emissions are reduced 9 DPEP Analogy to automobiles Programs like Moyer reduce emissions by reducing the emissions per gallon fuel consumed (Tier III/IV engines). Programs like DPEP reduce emissions by
improving fuel economy (higher pumping plant efficiency) thus, reducing emissions per gallon of water produced. 10 Why does a pump become inefficient? If OPE is poor, or the flow/head is not sufficient: The pump may be physically deteriorated The required operating condition has changed 1. 2. 3. 11 Well has deteriorated Change in irrigation system
Systemic change in water table Flood pump used for drip A. Good pump what operating condition? Summer 68/stg B. Worn Pump How worn? 12 Winter 45/stg DPEP as a Program
DPEP modeled after Ag Pumping Efficiency Program developed and implemented by CIT since 2002 see www.pumpefficiency.org A programmatic response to a non point source problem 13 Increase Problem Awareness Increase Solution Awareness Provide Targeted Resources Reach the innovators and early adapters (the influential actors) as quickly as possible DPEP Programmatic Response
Education / Outreach create problem/solution awareness Targeted Resources (in DPEP) 14 Subsidized Pump Tests specific information regarding individual problems The retrofit incentive alter benefit/cost ratio of the solution The Pump Efficiency Test OPE Overall Pumping Plant Efficiency OPE tells you how much usable energy you
get from the energy you buy If the overall OPE is 20%, the other 80% of energy you paid for is wasted. We know achievable levels of OPE Thus, knowing OPE leads to an estimate of the benefit/cost of a pump retrofit. 15 The Pump Test reveals cost/benefits Estimates of before and after retrofit pumping cost are on the report Retrofitted Conditions Original Conditions Savings 7. Diesel Gallons per Acre-foot: 25.2
37 11.3 8. Estimated Gallons per year: 8192 11899 3707.2 9. Average Cost per Gallon: $2.50 $2.50 10. Average Cost per hour: $9.74 $11.17
$1.43 11. Average Cost per acre-foot: $62.99 $91.27 $28.28 12. Estimated acre-feet per year: 325 326 13. Operating hours per year: 2412 3000
$23,494 $33,497 $10,003 But since the cost of the repair is not known, no ability to do payback, rate of return, etc. on the report but the owner can! 16 DPEP Incentive Rebate Designed to affect the perceived benefit/cost ratio of retrofitting the pump Intended to have the same effect as current Moyer program but on the PUMP, not the ENGINE Grants capped at 35% of project cost up to
$3,500 maximum 17 Participation Pump Efficiency Test 18 DPEP qualifies participating pump testers that agree to DPEP procedures Client either calls DPEP to obtain the list of Testers or Testers actively market the test Test arranged between the Client and the Tester (note: Client chooses which Tester to use)
Tester prepares and delivers report Tester takes care of paperwork with DPEP and DPEP pays subsidy to Tester directly Participation DPEP Incentive Rebate DPEP A programmatic response to the air quality problem Simplified participation Minimized administrative costs 1. Fill out application and submit with: i. Copy of pump test before the project 2. We review and issue Letter of Approval 3. 4.
19 When project is complete you send: i. Copy of an invoice marked PAID ii. Copy of the after-project pump test We send you the check DPEP Implemented on Pilot Basis Funding: West Coast Collaborative Valley CAN
Total Goals (all goals achieved!): 69 pump efficiency tests 11 pump retrofit projects Geographic Area: Central and Southern San Joaquin Valley 20 DPEP Results for the State 69 Pump Efficiency Tests total, 58 were before retrofits (57 wells, 1 booster) w/ 17.1% average OPE (22-24% attainable) 11 pump retrofit projects completed with 11 post-tests OPE GPM Brake HPinput
Engine RPM Input HP-hrs per ac-ft 21 Before 13.8% 742 80 1734 2237 After 23.2% 1025 86 1696 1319 Implied emissions reduction average pump repair 3.4 tons NOx and
0.15 tons PM10 Implied CO2 reduction in first year 35 tons Average direct cost per project (two tests plus rebate) - $3,615 = $565/weighted ton DPEP Results for the State CO2 In the first year alone after the retrofit Estimated 3,180 gallons diesel saved per project 34,980 gallons total. 35.3 tons CO2 saved per project 388 tons total in first year (@ 22.2 lbs CO2/gallon). (Note the EPA estimates 22.2 lbs CO2/gallon diesel at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm) 22 Results for Individuals
Average 3,180 gallons diesel/year saved Average $3,115/project rebate Average $12,800 project cost (per invoices) Implied simple payback @ $2.00/gallon Cost = $12,800 $3,115 = $9,685 Savings = $2.00/gal x 3,180 gal/yr = $6,360/yr Payback = 9,685 / 6,360 = 1.5 yrs 23 Verification of Emissions Reduction A key issue in funding this Program at full scale is verification of emissions reductions that is Can DPEP verify emissions reductions at same level of confidence as current Moyer Program?
24 Non-Engine Projects As per Moyer Guidelines (2005) Part I, page II-31 if low emissions technology is not certified it may be approved on a case-by-case basis by ARB Ibid. - As per Part II, page X-10, potential non-engine projects Another potential project is the evaluation of irrigation pump efficiency. Improvement in pump efficiency through parts replacement and repair has the potential for emission reductions of NOx, ROG, and PM by reduced work by the engine or motor for water output. 25
Non-Engine Projects Ibid. - As per Part II, pages X-7 and X-8, Non-Engine Projects evaluation criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. 26 Provide real, quantifiable, and enforceable emissions reductions (for DPEP, HP-hrs/ac-ft pumped) Have standardized testing procedures to quantify emissions (for DPEP, pump efficiency test) Have available baseline emission factors (for DPEP, pre- and post-test requirements) Potential multi-media issues(?) Verification of Emissions Reduction Moyer: DPEP:
Keys on emissions/hour Keys on emissions/Ac-Ft Per unit reduction verified by Per unit reduction verified by inengine manufacturers field pump test total emissions determined based Total units determined based on on hour meter self-reported flow meter self reported unless unless inspected inspected Questions: 1. 2. 27 Is engine kept in tune, run at correct rpm and load? Does engine performance persist?
Questions: 1. 2. Tested at normal operating conditions? Does pump performance persist? Verification of Emissions Reduction Verification for DPEP can be achieved to same level of confidence as current Moyer 28
Per unit reduction by accepted measurements standard pump efficiency test vs. manufacturers data Same types of variances apply - manufacturing tolerances, tune of engine, management of engine, persistance Total emissions based on an accepted (and selfreported meter) hour meter for current Moyer, flowmeter for DPEP Current Moyer guidelines allow for non-engine measures but not the only funding alternative Why a DPEP on top of ARBs? Programmatic response through DPEP most efficient and effective use of funds to achieve emissions reductions through pump efficiency improvements
29 CIT/APEP in field for 5 years established communication links, grower trust Easy application, quick turnaround Cost-effective administration Fully-integrated program (education -> pump test -> pump retrofit) We know agriculture, pumps, and irrigation DPEP as an Early Action Item AB 32 (Greenhouse Gas bill)mandates preparation of a list of Early Action items by June 30 that can reduce CO2 emissions. DPEP is an Early Action item
30 Proven program that results in verifiable CO2 reductions Economical to implement Immediate implementation DPEP Phase II Help develop pump test infrastructure Components:
Complete pump test calculation/report/ databasing software Instructions for fuel flow device construction and operation On-site visits to transfer knowledge Funding: Valley CAN Project Completed all goals met! 31 DPEP - Education The Mobile Education Centers are self-contained pumping plants that travel to the farmer. We would add this component for a full-scale DPEP. They can Perform real-time pump efficiency test with computerized displays of performance Show correct flow meter use
Synthesize diesel operations using Variable Frequency Drives Calculate cost of inefficient pumping 32 In Summary DPEP sees the pumping plant as a system of four components inefficiencies in any of them increase emissions As current Carl Moyer addresses the power source, DPEP addresses the pump itself and management of the plant An efficient pump results in less emissions per
unit water produced, just as a Tier III engine 33 In Summary A pilot-level DPEP with pump efficiency tests and retrofit incentives essentially complete: 34 58 pre-retrofit pump efficiency tests average 17.1% OPE (22 24% attainable) 11 completed retrofit projects all water wells Showing average pre-retrofit 13.8% OPE and post-retrofit 23.2% OPE, deep wells Showing implied 40% first year emissions reduction (2237 HP-hours/AF -> 1319 HP-hrs/AF) Lifetime total 3.4 tons NOx and .15 tons PM10 emissions reduction (18-20,000 hours)
Average $3,615 program costs/retrofit (incentive and 2 pump tests) - $565/weighted ton emissions reduction (neglecting ROG, PM10 x 20) Next Step Full-scale Diesel Pumping Efficiency Program for 3-5 years 35 ~ 800 pump tests/year ~ 100-125 pump retrofit/rebuild projects/ year ~ 10 educational seminars in field/year + educational materials Numbers based on current census of
engines and what market will bear Anticipated Results from Full-Scale DPEP Assuming similar results from the pilot projects, for a 3-year program of 125 pump retrofits/year: 1,275 tons total reduced NOx emissions 56.25 tons total reduced PM10 emissions 1,192,500 gallons reduced diesel usage/year* In the range of 13,000 tons reduced CO2/year (@ 22.2 lbs CO2/gallon diesel consumed)* (Note the EPA estimates 22.2 lbs CO2/gallon diesel at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm)
*diesel use and CO2 reductions would be expected to decrease over the life of the pump retrofit 36 Diesel Pumping Efficiency Program Contact: John Weddington Peter Canessa DPEP CIT 6014 North Cedar 5370 N. Chestnut M/S OF18 Fresno, CA 93170 Fresno, CA 93740 (800) 845-6038 (559) 278-2066 Also see www.pumpefficiency.org for information on the Ag Pumping Efficiency Program (the model for DPEP) 37
Showcase for the Microsoft stack for Local & Regional Governments Portal Services 2 portals Citizen/ Tourist Civil Servant Intranet SharePoint Templates Reusable Web Parts Example Scenarios Including CRM Integration examples Set-up Tools Virtual Machines Documentation Functional Spec Demo Script Slide...
Contractors working aboard Marine Corps installations or units will abide by provisions of 29 CFR 1910 and EM-385-1-1, Corps of Engineers Safety Manual. Military unique situations (e.g., obstacle course training, rappelling) shall be governed by the appropriate military standard or...
English Literature Example Questions. Macbeth, A Christmas Carol, An Inspector Calls, ... who were pouring out their hearts in praise of Fezziwig: and when he had done so, said, ... Compare how the poem 'Remains' and one other poem explore...
Density Notes EQ: What is density? A. Mass Measured in grams (g) Mass vs weight matter in the object Depends on the attraction of gravity B. Volume Measured in cm3, mL, L, … Amount of space taken up by an...
Unintentional Torts (Negligence) Under the doctrine of unintentional tort, commonly referred to as negligence, a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions.Negligence is defined as " the omission to do something which...
In other words, by lumping together different companies at different times we hide the heterogeneity (individuality or uniqueness) that may exist among the companies. Another way of stating this is that the individuality of each subject (company) is included in...
Cost: Reduced 100 returns on a multi-thousand dollar mattress. Moisture Management Standards: BS EN 20811, AATCC 129, GB/T 4744, BS 3321, BS 3424-26 (29A/29C), ERT 120-2-02, ISO 811, JIS L 1092A Situation: Implementation of device by several medical companies has...
Subcommittee Members Chris Knight (Walters SCC) Co-chair John Kendall (SW TN) Co-chair Marva Lucas (MTSU) Helen Darcey (Cleveland SCC) Mary Monroe-Ellis (PSTCC) Sharon Lee (Wilson County Schools) Daryl Stephens (ETSU) MATH Survey The next few slides show a version of...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!