Water Optimization Studies Lessons Learned and Helpful Tools · •System optimization studies...
Transcript of Water Optimization Studies Lessons Learned and Helpful Tools · •System optimization studies...
Water Optimization Studies – Lessons Learned and Helpful Tools
Steven C. Jones, M.S. Gordon L. Jones, M.S.
December 3rd, 2015
• 100s of water systems, all sizes
• Water and energy audits
• Master Planning
• System optimization studies
• Strategic management programs
• Water quality, energy and
hydraulic modeling
WATER AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
WATER
SYSTEM
OPTIMIZATION
Experience and Case Studies
WORLDWIDE DAILY RESIDENTIAL WATER USAGE COMPARISON
(liters/capita)
Note: In the major cities of the Kingdom, the daily water consumption has reached more than 600 liters per person per day (orange bar). (Samad and Bruno 2013)
940
Uta
h
NATIONAL WATER GOALS
Key Indicator Unit Baseline
as of 2010
Target by (year)
2015 2020 2030 2040
Yearly use of non-renewable resources BCM 14.5 10 8 5 5
Implementation of regional water plans % N/A 50 100 100 100
Use of renewable water resources % N/A 60 70 80 90
Metering of all water supply services % N/A 40 60 80 95
Reuse of treated municipal wastewater % 30 60 80 100 100
Reuse of industrial wastewater % 10 40 65 80 90
Targeted per capita consumption Lpcd 238 200 180 170 170
Municipal water supply losses % 30 20 12 5 5
Purpose of Water System Optimization
Studies
Minimize use of groundwater
Optimize water use
Identify and eliminate inefficiency
Minimize water losses
Maximize water reuse
Purpose of Water System Optimization
Studies
Average Energy Intensity of Water Supplies
0.37 0.48
0.62–0.87
2.6–4.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Lake or River Groundwater Reclaimed Wastewater Desalinated Seawater
Avera
ge e
nerg
y inte
nsity (
kW
h/m
3)
Optimizing Water Consumption
• Identify the proposed water source(s) for the project
• Identify the proposed use and demand
• Determine if there are alternative sources that would not rely on groundwater
• Determine if the proposed use(s) is necessary for the project or whether projected demands could be reduced.
Optimizing Water Consumption
• Examples for National Guard Family Compound Project
– Public Education
– Require Water-Saving Fixtures
– Installation of Water Meters
– Water Waste Fee
– Water Loss Program
– Irrigation Plan
Minimize Water Loss
• Leak Testing During Installation
• Development of Water Loss Control Program
– Installation of Meters
– Water audits performed on consistent basis
– Accountability for losses
Maximize Water Reuse
• Identify water quality that is necessary for reuse, tertiary treatments should be used for irrigation
• Industrial reuse and recycling
• Dust control, construction water, etc.
http://www.water-technology.net/projects/-eastern-treatment-plant-tertiary-upgrade-project-melbourne/
WATER OPTIMIZATION PROCESS
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org
1. Baseline Water Footprint
• Identify every water-consuming component • Prepare a mass balance
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org
2. Identify Efficiency Opportunities
• Perform a water solution technologies review • Rank the various components by water usage • Identify leakage • Identify sources of waste • Identify reuse opportunities
• Cooling towers • Equipment cooling • Equipment rinsing and cleaning • Condensate recovery
• Outdoor irrigation • Indoor water fixtures • Equipment replacement
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org
2. Identify Efficiency Opportunities Heating and Cooling
Optimizing heating and cooling needs
Water-free systems
Re-circulating systems
Effective water monitoring and maintenance program
Recycling of blow-down
Central heating or cooling
Leak detection
Cooling Towers
Controlled evaporation with variable speed fans
Minimizing splash losses
Minimizing drift losses
Use of alternative water sources www.afedonline.org
2. Identify Efficiency Opportunities Washing and Rinsing
Counter-current rinsing
Mechanical pre-rinsing
Using chemicals and
Equipment and Space Cleaning
Mechanical pre-cleaning
Cleaning in Place (CiP)
High-pressure, low-volume systems These systems
Use of triggered, self shut-off nozzles
Use of steam or hot water
www.afedonline.org
2. Identify Efficiency Opportunities
Engage Your Employees as a Source for Water Savings Ideas
Survey your employee base by asking them to identify sources of waste
Launch an employee awareness program
Communicate with employees regularly
Hold managers accountable for adopting ideas and executing them
www.afedonline.org
2. Identify Efficiency Opportunities
www.afedonline.org
3. Prepare an Optimization Plan
• Identify water saving ideas • Prioritize ideas • Develop ideas into projects • Prepare implementation plan
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org
4. Execute and Measure
• Implement projects
• Determine metric to measure
• Track progress
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
-
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
Jan
-07
Ap
r-0
7
Jul-
07
Oct
-07
Jan
-08
Ap
r-0
8
Jul-
08
Oct
-08
Jan
-09
Ap
r-0
9
Jul-
09
Oct
-09
Jan
-10
Ap
r-1
0
Jul-
10
Oct
-10
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
1,0
00
Gal
lon
s P
um
ped
Co
st /
1K
Gal
lon
s
Energy and Power Pumping Costs per 1,000 Gallons
Total Cost/1KGal.Gallons Pumped
Linear (TotalCost/1K Gal.)Linear (GallonsPumped)
NASA, “The Blue Marble” (West)
Life Cycle of Water Supply
Source: Alliance to Save Energy
Hydraulic Model
Mass Balance
Water Footprint
Equipment Audit
Operational Practices
Training
Tools of Water System Optimization
Tools – Hydraulic Model
Pipe
Node
Valve
Tank
Pump Reservoir
Tools – Hydraulic Model
Tools – Hydraulic Model
Tools – Hydraulic Model
Tools – Hydraulic Model
Tools – Hydraulic Model
TANK LEVEL
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM
Level (f
eet)
SCADA System
Model
Tools – Hydraulic Model SY
STEM
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
Tools – Hydraulic Model
WAT
ER Q
UA
LITY
Tools – Hydraulic Model
ENER
GY
EFFI
CIE
NC
Y
37
Tools – Hydraulic Model
WATER AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
WATER
SYSTEM
OPTIMIZATION
Tools – Mass Balance
City of North Salt Lake Proposed Water System Mass Balance Sheet
Zone
STORAGE SOURCES PUMP STATIONS PRVs
Existing Zone
Demand (gpm)
Total Supply (gpm)
Total Demand
(gpm)
Energy Cost ($/MG)
Total Peak Month Energy
Use (kWh)
Total Peak Month Energy Cost ($)
Total Peak Month Energy
Use (kWh) Name Elevation Head (ft) Name Rate
Schedule
Energy Req'd
(kWh/MG)
Energy Cost ($/MG)
Source Capacity
(gpm)
Source Flow (gpm)
Peak Month Energy Use
(kWh)
Peak Month Energy Cost ($)
Name Rate
Schedule
Energy Req'd
(kWh/MG)
Energy Cost ($/MG)
Capacity (gpm)
Flow In (gpm)
Flow Out (gpm)
Peak Month Energy Use
(kWh)
Peak Month Energy Cost
($)
PRV Flow In (gpm)
PRV Flow Out (gpm)
1 4,203 1,758 0 1,758 1,758 1,758 $0.00 0 $0 $169
2 350 East / Morton 4,518
1100 North Well 6 1,548 $159 1,400 410 27,418 $2,816 350 East 1 6A 600 $78 1,290 916 0 $0
0 1,758 697 6,271 6,271 $168.74 88,067 $7,740 $169
Honey Well 6 2,020 $164 1,400 695 60,648 $4,924 350 East 2 6A 850 $111 1,432 1,400 0 $0
New Well 6 2,077 $189 1,000 0 0 $0 Morton P.H. 6 705 $92 2,000 1,500 0 $0
Weber Basin Morton 3,000 2,866 0 $0 0 $0
Weber Basin Center 2,800 2,300 0 $0 0 $0
Eaglewood Tank 4,614 Morton P.H. 6 705 $92 2,000 1,500 45,684 $5,962
0 1,500 1,500 $92.00 45,684 $5,962 $261 Eaglewood P.H. 6 2,971 $364 1,600 1,500 0 $0
3 Steel Tank 4,648 350 East #1 6A 600 $78 1,290 916 23,743 $3,087
0 0 107 916 916 $78.00 23,743 $3,087 $247 Steel P.H. 6A 910 $97 1,400 809 0 $0
4 4,778 163 0 163 163 163 $0.00 0 $0 $279
13 4,813 42 0 42 42 42 $0.00 0 $0 $279
5 Alger Tank 4,887 Flying J Well 6 4,235 $374 400 0 0 $0 Alger P.H. 6 1,504 $158 1,900 1,099 0 $0
0 192 109 1,400 1,400 $168.03 51,408 $6,683 $279 350 East #2 6A 850 $111 1,432 1,400 51,408 $6,683
7 4,933 140 92 48 140 140 $0.00 0 $0 $344
11 Gary Tank 4,978 Gary P.H. 6A 1,226 $144 1,360 401 0 $0
200 163 445 1,009 1,009 $97.00 31,803 $3,390 $344 Steel P.H. 6A 910 $97 1,400 809 31,803 $3,390
6 5,060 0 $0 1,033 703 330 1,033 1,033 $0.00 0 $0 $625
12 5,038 0 $0 100 92 8 100 100 $0.00 0 $0 $625
10 5200 Tanks 5,210 Tunnel Springs 25 25 0 $0
5200 #1 P.H. 6 1,451 $193 1,200 1,150 0 $0
0 995 880 3,025 3,025 $198.50 285,164 $33,583 $625
5200 #2 P.H. 6 1,702 $263 1,600 0 0 $0
Tunnel Springs P.H. 6A 0 $0 150 25 0 $0
Gary P.H. 6A 1,226 $144 1,360 401 21,238 $2,495
Alger P.H. 6 1,504 $158 1,900 1,099 71,405 $7,501
Eaglewood P.H. 6 2,971 $364 1,600 1,500 192,521 $23,587
8 5,193 0 $0 86 0 86 86 86 $0.00 0 $0 $625
9 5,367 0 $0 774 86 688 774 774 $0.00 0 $0 $858
15 5,395 0 $0 44 0 44 44 44 $0.00 0 $0 $858
14 5480 Tanks 5,479 5200 #1 P.H. 6 1,451 $193 1,200 1,150 72,086 $9,588
818 332 1,150 1,150 $233.00 72,086 $9,588 $858 5200 #2 P.H. 6 1,702 $263 1,600 0 0 $0
TOTALS 10,025 6,296 88,067 $7,740 8,800 8,775 509,888 $62,293 4,340 4,899 5,737 19,411 19,411 $282.57 597,955 $70,033 $283
Tools – Operational Practices
1
Case Study - Logan City Water System
•Population of 49,000
•Utah State University
•10,182 metered connections
•190 miles of mainline
•1 spring and 4 deep wells
1
Problems Facing Logan City
• Deteriorating Infrastructure
• High rate of mainline breaks
• Over 300 per year
• Extremely high pressures
• Over 220 psi regularly
• Shortage of water sources in summer
• High energy costs to pump water
• Majority of operations was reactionary as opposed to preventive
1
The solution - River Park Well
• River Park Well to provide another source
– Modeling reveals the real problem
– Transmission was lacking and large pressure fluctuations
• Sources were not the problem.
• Need to fix high pressure and large fluctuations
Initial Scope (RFQ)
Well development
Transmission line
Hydraulic modeling
Water & energy audit
New pressure
zone
Well pump station retrofits
Transmission upsizing
Efficient operation
Actual Scope
Well development
Transmission line
Hydraulic modeling
Audit of water & energy use
New pressure zone
Well pump station retrofits
Minor transmission
upsizing
Efficient operation
Project Results
212 13.2 MGD $428K
128
11.0 MGD
$291K
Mainline breaks Water use Energy cost
2013
2014
↓ 40% ↓ 17% ↓ 32%
Additional Benefits Realized
• Less water wasted, Less energy wasted, Less money wasted
• Citizen complaints reduced – Increased level of service – Less pressure fluctuation
• Preventive maintenance occurring
• Crews attitudes have improved
• Safer working environment – lower pressures
• Eliminated the need for a $3 million transmission project
• Postponed construction of new water source
EXAMPLE OF SAVING WATER WITH HYDRAULIC MODELING
49
OTHER COMMON EXAMPLES OF OPTIMIZING WATER SYSTEMS
52
Implement a proper pipeline and equipment
replacement and maintenance plan
Systems not optimized for pressure have water and energy loss
Eliminate Unnecessary Pressure
Looping - Identify and eliminate pumping in
circles.
Leaping - Avoid skipping pressure zones
Losing - Avoid reducing pressure unnecessarily
Loading - Avoid intermittent and inefficient
pump operation
Leaking - Avoid water loss
55
Eliminate the 5 L’s
Pumping in Circles - Before
56
Pumping in Circles - After
57
Inefficient System Layout
Unusable equalization storage because of
tank location or elevation
Inadequate transmission capacity
Unnecessary relief of source water pressure
Too much source and storage in the upper
pressure zone with a majority of the demand
in the lower pressure zone
Automate Efficient Operation
Efficient Pump Station Design
Water Conservation
Breaking Barriers
Lack of Awareness
Operators may not be used to thinking about water
optimization. Utilities must understand benefit–cost arguments for doing so.
Risk
Deviating from the usual routine creates risk, whether perceived or real. Fears must
be addressed and benefits must outweigh costs.
Change Implies a Problem
Utilities and industry may resist new ideas if
suggestions for improvements imply criticism or incompetence.
Cost
Identifying, understanding, and resolving inefficiencies require money that may be
difficult to budget for.
IN SUMMARY
Water systems have significant untapped
efficiency improvement potential
Water Optimization Studies using appropriate
tools such as hydraulic modeling are valuable
in improving system performance and
efficiency
Taking measures to make your system more
efficient can save valuable water resources
and money
1
1.
2.
3.