Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Resd technologies-epri
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Resd technologies-epri

660

Published on

PQ Forum 2011 proceedings http://www.leonardo-energy.org/power-quality-forum-2011-tue-eindhoven

PQ Forum 2011 proceedings http://www.leonardo-energy.org/power-quality-forum-2011-tue-eindhoven

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
660
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EPRI’s Evaluation of RESD Technologies Bill Howe, P.E., CEM Manager, Power Quality EPRI Retrofit Energy Saving Devices (RESD) Common Claims • Improved power factor • Reduced harmonics • Improved voltage imbalance • Reduced electrical current levels • Cooler device operation • Prolonged motor and other device life • Improved voltage level (higher or lower) • Quick payback • Improved energy efficiency – 10%, 20%, or even 30% energy cost reductions are common in vendor literature© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 1
  • 2. Case Study – Paper Plant Comparing Year 1 kWh to the same months in Year 2 (Before & After Installation of the technology) Year 1 kWh Year 2 6000 4,876 5000 4,479 4000 3000 Change Y1 to Y2: -8.2% 2000 1000 0 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun MonthsProposed conclusion: The new technology saved this facility over 8% on its energy bill © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 Further examination of Energy Use: Year 3 (No Further reported change in Technology) kWh Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 6000 4,876 5000 4,479 4000 4,032 3000 2000 Change Y2 to Y3: -10% 1000 0 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Months • The further reduction of 447 kWh per month (nearly 10%) is unexplained, and apparently achieved with no installation of additional new technology. • Based on the techniques used in the original analysis, this plant improved efficiency more by doing nothing than by spending money on a new “energy saving” technology. © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 4 2
  • 3. Case Study – Fabric Plant Measurements: Before / After Energy Use Energy Use per Batch (no technology) Energy Use per Batch (with technology) Production Production Batch number (kg) kWh Batch number (kg) kWh 1 907 181 9 901 173 2 911 185 10 791 174 3 914 190 11 933 174 4 907 184 12 764 176 5 911 180 13 912 176 6 796 188 14 911 178 7 769 181 15 908 179 8 770 180 16 912 180 Average of data 860 183 Average of data 879 176 Average kWh/kT 213 Average kWh/kT 201 Difference (before/after) -6%© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 5 Another look at the Data: Baseline kWh 192 190 188 186 184 Average 182 (213.3 kWh/ton) 180 178 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 Kilos of Product© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 3
  • 4. Another look at the Data: “After” kWhkWh 181 180 179 178 177 Average 176 175 (200.6 kWh/ton) 174 173 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 Kilos of Product© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 7 Case Study – Packaging Facility Calculations that don’t add up – Savings Estimates for a packaging plant’s main transformers • KVA reduction for T1 = sqrt(3) * V * I = 1.732 * 480 * 206 = 171 kVA • KVA reduction for T2 = sqrt(3) * V * I = 1.732 * 480 * 401 = 333 kVA • Finding errors of this type is common© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 8 4
  • 5. Case Study – Fox 10 News Story, Phoenix Arizona Sunday December 14th, 2008 Without Capacitor Based RESD Year Before With Capacitor Based RESD Current Year Source: Deal or Dud Story FOX10 News, Phoenix Arizona Sunday December 14th, 2008 www.myfoxpheonix.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrTVxNxuHao© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 9 CDD Analysis of Phoenix 2007-2008• As shown with the representation of the CDD Data 2007-2008 Cooling Degree Days (CDD), 2007 2007 2008 required more cooling then 2008 did 1000 900 – From www.degreedays.net 800 700 – Airport: Phoenix, AZ, US 600 (112.01W,33.43N), Weather station 500 400 ID KPHX 300 – This is one reason for the difference 200 100 shown on the utility yearly 0 April May June July August Septemeber October November statement.• What other changes were possibly made in the home? Home Owner Energy Bill October 2008 – This is by no means a controlled experiment – More energy efficient appliances? – Cooking at home more a given month than eating out? – CFLs replacing incandescent? – Work schedules? – Changes in habits – Etc.© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 5
  • 6. EPRI RESD Research • EPRI is has an ongoing research project to evaluate retrofit energy savings devices (RESDs). – RESD Phase I - Completed – RESD Phase II - Ongoing • The research findings and analysis confirm the need for independent measurement and verification of retrofit energy savings devices. © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 EPRI Residential Test Stand Setup (240Vac Cap Hook Up) 200A Panel L1 N L2 Energy Saver Unit To Common Household 120Vac 35 MicroF 35 MicroF Loads: 240VAC 240VAC CFLs & Incandescent Lights Window Air Conditioners Flat Screen TV & DVD Player PC and Monitor Blower Fans Refrigerator To 240Vac Fan MotorTests show savings range from 1 to 20 watts. © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 12 6
  • 7. 240V Fan Example • This test involved a loaded 240V fan • Data was recorded with the fan running as normal • The Capacitor based RESD unit was then added to the circuit • Data was recorded with the Capacitor based RESD unit in the circuit© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 13 Power Summary-240 V Fan • For residential purposes, with No KVAR KVAR Unit % the unit in the system, there unit Unit Difference Difference was an energy savings of 0.09%. • KVA and VAR‟s more than Watts 735.02 734.37 0.65 0.09% doubled due to the added capacitance. – Leading PF VA 756.552 1547.512 790.96 51.11% • Average %Ithd without the Unit is 2.18% • Average %Ithd with the Unit KVAR 178.97 -1362.14 (1,541.11) 113.14% is 9.63% – Harmonic Sink© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 14 7
  • 8. Nola’s Clever Motor Controller Popular Science, July 1979© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 15 Applications for MVCs • These technologies work best on motors that are lightly loaded. • Three Phase: – Escalators, MG sets, conveyors, mixers, grinders, crushers, granulators, saws, metal scrappers, shredders, slicers, stamping presses, balers, and lathes • Single Phase: – Clothes washer, clothes dryer, fans, blenders, saws, sanders, slicers, conveyors, and compressors© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 16 8
  • 9. EPRI Test Setup Eddy Current Brake 20 Hp 480V Motor Waveform MVC RESD Data Recorder Image Monitor Power Quality Meter Tri-Mode Brake Sag Generator Controller Mikron Infrared Camera© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 17 Example Test E2 – 25% Load w/ MVC Enabled • Test Start: – Energy Saving mode enabled – Brake coupled and loaded to 25% • Typical Input Measurements • 480 VAC • 8.35 Amps / phase • 2.66 kVA / phase • 2.03 KVAR / phase • 3.45 kW Total • Pf 0.48 • 32.2 C (Max Temp) • Δ Temp = - 3.4 C • 20.1 Hp motor, 15 kW full load – Approx 3.45 kW load – 23% Loaded – Δ Power = - 280 W • PQ meter (top) and thermal camera (bottom) snapshots taken in the last 5 minutes before finish© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 18 9
  • 10. Conclusion • In EPRI‟s tests we have found the following: – Capacitor-based RESDs appear to save little-to-no net energy, especially when connected away from loads – Motor Voltage Controllers can save energy on lightly loaded motors. • Tests show up to 25% savings in lab tests • Payback can be less than three years for long operation at very light load (< 25%) and high electricity rates – Lighting Voltage Controllers can save energy when applied to compatible ballasts • EPRI tests results range from 9% to 25% • Typical Paybacks likely from 3 to 6 years noted based on based on electricity rates • The RESD II project continues as we look forward to testing additional devices based on funding.© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 19 Favorite Quotes from over the years • “The technology doesn‟t work in the lab … it only works in the field.” • “The technology works at very high frequencies, so normal instruments can‟t be used to measure it‟s benefits” • “The technology converts reactive power to real power AND power factor is improved.” • “The technology interacts with the whole system to make it more efficient.” • “The technology „settles in‟ over time, so efficiency just keeps getting better and better.” • “We don‟t really know how it works. Not even the inventor knows how it works.” • “I hate talking to engineers … they ask too many difficult questions.”© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 20 10
  • 11. “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence” -- Carl Sagan© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 21 11

×