cbalance solutions pvt. ltd energy audit reportgits food unit energy audit report – april 2017...

Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report – April 2017

cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd

Energy Audit Report

for

Gits Food Products Pvt Ltd

Pune, Maharashtra

Prepared by: Vivek Gilani Ashoka Fellow Environmental Engineer (E.I.T) BEE Certified Energy Auditor (EA-17177) Founder/ Director: cBalance Solutions Hub

Dhrumit Parikh M.Tech, Solar & Alternative Energy BEE Certified Energy Manager

Vishwajeet Poojary B. E. Mechanical Engineering In consultation with: M/s. Energetic Consulting Pvt Ltd

Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7

2 Project Scope .............................................................................................................. 7

3 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 9

4 Energy Audit Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 10

4.1 Baseline Performance Measurement ................................................................ 10

4.1.1 Grid Electrical Energy Consumption ..................................................... 13

4.1.2 Captive Power Generation (Diesel) ...................................................... 19

4.1.3 High Speed Diesel for Boilers ................................................................ 22

4.1.4 Plant Load Distribution and Area-Wise Energy Consumption Patterns 22

4.1.5 Power Factor ......................................................................................... 25

4.1.6 System-Wide Energy Performance Assessment & Energy Conservation Opportunities ............................................................................................. 27

4.1.6.1 Load Curve Management ......................................................... 27

4.1.6.2 Increase Contract Demand for CRTE plant .............................. 28

4.1.6.3 DG Set Energy Conservation Opportunities ............................. 30

4.2 Lighting System .................................................................................................. 33

4.2.1 Lighting System Performance Assessment ........................................... 33

4.2.2 Lighting Recommendations and Energy Conservation Opportunities . 40

4.2.2.1 ILER Improvement .................................................................... 40

4.2.2.2 Reduce Excess Illuminance ....................................................... 41

4.2.2.3 Replacement with LED Lights ................................................... 42

4.2.2.4 Other options for Lighting Energy Conservation ..................... 42

4.3 HVAC System ...................................................................................................... 43

4.3.1 AHU Performance Assessment ............................................................. 44

4.3.2 Cooling Towers ..................................................................................... 45

4.3.2.1 Cooling Tower Performance Assessment ................................ 45

4.3.2.2 Cooling Tower Energy Conservation Opportunities ................ 46

4.4 Boilers ................................................................................................................. 47

4.4.1 Boiler Performance Assessment ........................................................... 47

4.4.1.1 Thermal Efficiency and Loading Assessment ........................... 47

4.4.1.2 Energy and Efficiency Loss Assessment ................................... 51

4.4.2 Boiler & Steam System Recommendation and Energy Conservation Opportunities ............................................................................................. 53

4.4.2.1 Thermal Efficiency Enhancement ............................................ 53

4.4.2.2 Fuel Saving Device - FLUX Maxiox ............................................ 54

4.4.2.3 Alternate Fuel (Bio-diesel) ....................................................... 55

4.4.2.4 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD ....................................... 56

4.4.2.5 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with Bio-diesel .............................. 57

4.5 Compressed Air System ...................................................................................... 59

4.5.1 GRTE and CRTE Compressed Air System Assessment .......................... 59


4.5.2 Energy Conservation Opportunity in Compressor System ................... 64

4.5.2.1 Lowering the Air Intake Temperature ...................................... 64

4.5.2.2 Lowering the Set Pressure ....................................................... 65

4.5.2.3 Waste Heat Recovery ............................................................... 66

4.6 Miscellaneous ..................................................................................................... 68

4.6.1 IDEC at Dryer Section (GRTE Plant) for Comfort Cooling ..................... 68

4.6.2 Solar PV at GRTE Plant .......................................................................... 69

4.6.3 Atmospheric Vacuum Dryer ................................................................. 69

5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 71

6 Appendix ................................................................................................................... 76

Appendix I-A .................................................................................................... 76

Appendix I-B .................................................................................................... 76

Appendix II ...................................................................................................... 77

Appendix III-A .................................................................................................. 78

Appendix III-B .................................................................................................. 78

Appendix IV ..................................................................................................... 79


List of Tables Table 1 Annual Energy Use Summary – Plant wise ....................................................................... 10

Table 2 Annual Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined .................................................... 10

Table 3 GHG Emission Factors and Inventory – Energy................................................................. 12

Table 4 Tariff Structure for GRTE and CRTE................................................................................... 13

Table 5 Time-of-Day (TOD) Structure ............................................................................................ 14

Table 6 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Plant-wise ................................................. 17

Table 7 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined ............................... 18

Table 8 DG Set Summary ............................................................................................................... 21

Table 9 Boiler Fuel Consumption & Steam Generation Summary ................................................ 22

Table 10 Feeder Assessment Time Duration ................................................................................. 22

Table 11 Power Factor Trends ....................................................................................................... 25

Table 12 TOD Losses / Gain Summary ........................................................................................... 28

Table 13 Monthly Maximum & Excess Demand (CRTE) ................................................................ 28

Table 14 Estimated Savings from Increased Contracted Demand at CRTE ................................... 29

Table 15 Saving Estimates through Fuel Saving Device in DG Sets - FLUX Maxiox ....................... 30

Table 16 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives in DG Sets ............................................................................. 31

Table 17 Lighting System –Illuminance Assessment for CRTE Plant ............................................. 34

Table 18 Lighting System – Illuminance Assessment for GRTE Plant ............................................ 35

Table 19 Lamp Efficiency Metrics .................................................................................................. 36

Table 20 Fixture-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary.................................... 36

Table 21 Plant-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary ...................................... 37

Table 22 Target lux/W/m2 as a function of Room Index .............................................................. 38

Table 23 ILER Color Code ............................................................................................................... 38

Table 24 ILER Assessment ............................................................................................................. 39

Table 25 Energy and Cost Savings from ILER Improvement .......................................................... 40

Table 26 Energy and Cost Saving by Reducing the Lighting Fixtures............................................. 41

Table 27 Lighting Environmental and Cost Savings Estimate from Equipment Replacement ...... 42

Table 28 HVAC System – Fresh-Air Ventilation AHUs Performance Assessment.......................... 44

Table 29 Cooling Tower Rated and Measured Performance Overview ........................................ 46

Table 30 Cooling tower heat load and losses details .................................................................... 46

Table 31 Shutting Down the cooling Tower – Energy and Cost Saving Estimates ........................ 46

Table 32 Boiler Efficiency Trials - Performance Parameters ......................................................... 49

Table 33 High Speed Diesel - Fuel Analysis Results ....................................................................... 51

Table 34 Boiler Operation Parameters for ‘Indirect Method’ ....................................................... 51

Table 35 Scenarios for boiler performance estimation ................................................................. 52

Table 36 Boiler Losses for different scenarios - GRTE ................................................................... 52

Table 37 Boiler losses for different scenarios - CRTE .................................................................... 52

Table 38 Examination of losses in GRTE Boiler .............................................................................. 53

Table 39 Examination of losses in CRTE Boiler .............................................................................. 53

Table 40 Boiler Efficiency Enhancement Savings Estimate ........................................................... 54


Table 41 Saving Estimates through Fuel Saving Device- FLUX Maxiox .......................................... 55

Table 45 Savings from use of bio-diesel ........................................................................................ 55

Table 43 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD .............................................................................. 56

Table 44 Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with Bio-diesel ....................................................................... 57

Table 45 Compressor Rated Details .............................................................................................. 60

Table 46 Field Measurement Data ................................................................................................ 60

Table 47 Compressor Efficiency Analysis ...................................................................................... 61

Table 48 De-Rating of Air Compressors ......................................................................................... 63

Table 49 Velocity Assessment Based on Piping Size ..................................................................... 64

Table 50 Energy Savings by lowering the air intake temperature................................................. 64

Table 51 Pressure drops and power losses for different pipe sizes .............................................. 65

Table 52 Savings Summary by Reducing Delivery Pressure .......................................................... 65

Table 53 Waste Heat available for recovery ................................................................................. 66

Table 54 Estimated drying (washing machine) energy saved ....................................................... 67

Table 58 Indirect Direct Evaporative Cooler in Dryer Section ....................................................... 69

Table 59 Solar PV at GRTE Plant .................................................................................................... 69

Table 57 Overall Conservation Summary from Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy .............. 71

Table 58 Energy Efficiency Roadmap Projects & Marginal Abatement Costs Summary............... 73


List of Figures Figure 1 Annual Energy Use Distribution (MJ basis) ...................................................................... 11

Figure 2 Annual Energy Cost Distribution (INR basis).................................................................... 11

Figure 3 Annual Energy Source GHG Emissions Distribution (MT CO2e basis) .............................. 13

Figure 4 Monthly Electricity Consumption .................................................................................... 15

Figure 5 Monthly Electricity Cost .................................................................................................. 15

Figure 6 Monthly Power Demand - GRTE ...................................................................................... 18

Figure 7 Monthly Power Demand - CRTE ...................................................................................... 19

Figure 8 DG Sets Running Hours .................................................................................................... 20

Figure 9 DG Sets Diesel Consumption ........................................................................................... 20

Figure 10 DG Sets Energy Generation ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 11 GRTE Power Consumption Highlights ............................................................................ 23

Figure 12 GRTE Power Consumption Trend .................................................................................. 23

Figure 13 CRTE Power Consumption Highlights ............................................................................ 24

Figure 14 CRTE Power Consumption trend ................................................................................... 24

Figure 15 GRTE Power Factor Highlights ....................................................................................... 26

Figure 16 GRTE Power Factor Trend .............................................................................................. 26

Figure 17 CRTE Power Factor Highlights ....................................................................................... 27

Figure 18 CRTE Power Factor trend ............................................................................................... 27

Figure 19 Lighting Load Fixture Type-wise Distribution ................................................................ 36

Figure 20 Benchmark Boiler Dynamic Efficiency % vs. Heat Load % Curve ................................... 50

Figure 21 Schematic diagram of compressors - GRTE ................................................................... 60

Figure 22 Relative Free Air Delivery (%) ........................................................................................ 63

Figure 23 Heat Loss Diagram for Compressor ............................................................................... 66

Figure 24 Drying of laundry using waste heat from compressors ................................................. 67

Figure 25 MAC Curve for Energy Conservation Opportunities at Gits Food ................................. 72


1 Introduction

cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (India) was contracted by Gits Food Products Pvt. Ltd. to conduct an energy audit, as the primary step of an objective to optimize the energy consumption and reduce the environmental impact of operations at the plant.

The overarching objectives of the exercise were to:

• Determine the energy and related cost conservation potential for Gits Food Manufacturing Unit based on technological interventions

• Determine the energy and related cost conservation potential based on architectural interventions (especially related to building envelope/Air Conditioned space insulation)

• Determine the electrical energy cost reduction potential based on operational process changes (related to reorganizing the scheduling of energy consuming activities)

• Establish the comparative financial feasibility of proposed alternatives on a life-cycle cost basis

Additionally, cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd. determined the GHG mitigation potential for the proposed alternatives to reduce the overall Carbon Footprint of Gits Food Unit (Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions). This assessment culminates in a macro-level Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) Analysis.

2 Project Scope

MAC Curves: An enterprise-specific Marginal GHG Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) analysis is

a key component of an institutionalized Sustainability Strategy. It is designed to discover the

most cost-effective means of mitigating climate change impact through technological

interventions or modifications in management practices. It is a vital decision-support input

for planning capital expenditure on Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, Waste Reduction

& Management etc. projects in a manner that safeguards the financial sustainability of the

Organization while achieving tangible environmental and socio-economic sustainability

benefits for the planetary ecosystem. The idea is to harvest the low-hanging fruits first,

accumulate the economic benefits from these no-regret options and then steps through

more challenging interventions. In this way, it reduces financial risk and ensures longevity of

the environmental program at large.

MACC Methodology: Costs and benefits are calculated based on real values of financial

parameters such as inflation, interest rates, cost of electricity, energy etc. and resource

conservation benefits of options reflect the enhancement in technological alternatives

available over time.


The geographical scope of the project comprised execution of a detailed thermal and electrical energy audit of both plants, Gits Ready To Eat (GRTE) and Cofco Ready To Eat (CRTE), of Gits Food Products Pvt. Ltd. in Hadapsar (Pune, Maharashtra, India) over 5-days, beginning 22nd August 2016 through 26th August 2016.

The systems studied and assessed as part of the energy audit and conservation strategy devising process included the following:

• Boiler Systems

• Compressors

• Air Handling Units

• Cooling Towers

• Diesel Generator Sets

• Lighting Systems: TFL Lights, CFL Bulbs and LED lights


3 Methodology

The field measurement methodology adopted included the following processes and equipment:

• Digital Power Analyzer: for verifying total connected electrical load of both the

Industrial buildings (kW), the overall system Power Factor (PF), and other parameters

including total current drawn (A) and Voltage (V), and measuring electrical parameters

of compressors, utilities and major process equipment - to establish baseline system

performance.

• MECO Clamp-On Meter: for measuring electrical parameters of individual equipment -

to establish baseline system performance.

• Lutron Luxmeter: for measuring lux levels on the working planes of the workspaces and

human occupancy areas.

• Lutron Anemometer: for measuring flow rate (velocity) of condenser cooling air exiting

the outdoor-units to determine the performance of Air Handling Units and Cooling

Towers.

• Psychrometer: for measuring the dry bulb temperature (DBT) and wet bulb temperature

(WBT) of the ambient air and supply side or cooled air to establish the enthalpy change

across the condensers of the outdoor units.

• Measuring Tape: to measure the diameter of outdoor unit fans to convert air velocity

into mass flow rate, to measure the dimensions of filters of Air Handling Units.

• Combustion analyzer: to measure flue gas concentrations and gas temperature.


4 Energy Audit Data Analysis Following color coding has been used for the data interpretation in tables:

Color Data Interpretation

Rated or Derived Values

On-field Measured Values

Calculated Values based on Rated/Derived and On-field Measured Values

Calculated Summation/ Total

4.1 Baseline Performance Measurement The two plants (GRTE and CRTE) consume energy in the following forms

✓ High Speed Diesel for Boilers

✓ High Speed Diesel for Captive Power Generation (DG Sets)

✓ Grid Electricity for Plant Processes, Plant Utilities & Lighting.

The following sections of the report present an overview of the patterns related to these forms

of energy consumption.

The overall annual energy use distribution in terms of energy value (Gigajoules - GJ) and cost

(INR) amongst the above-mentioned fuels has been presented in the tables and charts below.

Table 1 Annual Energy Use Summary – Plant wise

Plant Details Annual Consumption

Units Annual Energy Use (GJ)

Annual Cost (INR in Lakhs)

GRTE Grid Electricity 11,71,447 kWh 4,217 101

GRTE Diesel 78,662 Litres 3,488 42.5

GRTE Total 7,706 143

CRTE Grid Electricity 2,11,107 kWh 760 20.9

CRTE Diesel 42,897 Litres 1,902 23.2

CRTE Total 2,662 44.1

Table 2 Annual Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined

Source Annual Consumption

Units Annual Energy Use (GJ)

Annual Cost (INR in Lakhs)

Specific Energy Cost (INR/TJ)

Grid Electricity 13,82,555 kWh 4,978 122 24,46,802

Diesel 1,21,558 Litres 5,390 65.7 12,19,686

Total 10,368 187

The cost basis for converting annual energy consumption to annual energy cost for each type of

energy source is presented above alongside the fuel type. The overall energy use distribution

assessment indicates that across both plants, both fuel sources Grid Electricity and High Speed

Diesel contribute evenly to the end-use-energy on a net calorific value basis, contributing 48%

and 52% of the annual energy use of 10,368 Giga Joules (GJ). The cost distribution across fuels

portrays a different pattern though, with electricity contributing to 65% to the total energy cost


of INR 1.9 crores which covers both the plants. High Speed Diesel cost accounts for a relatively

lower 35% of the annual energy cost while providing 52% of the annual energy on a calorific

value basis. Specific cost analysis (Cost per unit energy generated) indicates that Grid Electricity

is twice as costly as High Speed Diesel. These numbers imply that High Speed Diesel (HSD) is a

more cost-effective fuel. Additionally, plant-wise analysis of energy consumption showed that at

GRTE, Grid Electricity accounted for 70% of the energy cost with the remaining 30% being spent

on HSD. The same analysis at CRTE led to the information that Grid Electricity accounted for 47%

of the energy costs incurred at that plant while HSD accounted for the remaining 53%. These

numbers throw light on the relative dependencies on HSD as a fuel at both the plants. At CRTE,

the boilers represent a major energy sink, exacting close to 68% of the total energy demand of

the plant. While at GRTE, the equipment running on HSD (mainly boilers and DG sets), only

demand 45% of the total energy requirement. The overarching intelligence gathered from this

macro analysis is that grid electricity use exerts a higher influence on the total energy used by

the GRTE Plant (70% of the total energy consumption) and therefore warrants a higher priority

compared to thermal energy use in the energy audit and energy conservation roadmap

development process. Whereas for CRTE, equal priority for both Grid Electricity and HSD

generated energy is necessitated in the energy conservation process.

Figure 1 Annual Energy Use Distribution (MJ basis)

Figure 2 Annual Energy Cost Distribution (INR basis)

GRTE Grid Electricity41%

GRTE Diesel34%

CRTE Grid Electricity

7%

CRTE Diesel18%

GITS Energy Audit - Plant Wise Annual Energy Use Distribution (GJ Basis)

GRTE Grid Electricity

GRTE Diesel


CRTE Diesel

Annual Energy Usage = 10,368 GJ


The relative and total impacts of fossil and electrical energy consumption on the Direct and

Indirect (Scope 2) GHG Emissions of the plant are presented in the tables and charts below.

Table 3 GHG Emission Factors and Inventory – Energy

Energy Source GHG Emission Factor Units GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year)

GHG Emissions (Kg CO2e/TJ)

Grid Electricity 1.35 kg CO2e/kWh 1,868 3,75,190

Diesel (HSD) 2.66 kg CO2e/liter 323 74,3931

Total

The analysis indicates that the annual energy related GHG emissions for the plant are 2,191

metric tonnes of CO2e. The relative contribution of the emission sources is presented below. The

chart indicates that electricity related emissions are the most significant contributor to the

plant’s energy related GHG emissions (85%) compared to High Speed Diesel used in boilers and

generator sets (15%). Further analysis indicates that High Speed Diesel has 5-times lesser

emissions per unit of energy generated compared to Grid Electricity, implying that HSD is a

cleaner fuel in terms of emissions to the atmosphere. Hence from a climate change mitigation

perspective, mitigating electricity consumption would be a higher priority relative to thermal

energy conservation.

1 Calculations based on Net Calorific Value (NCV) of fuel (HSD)


GRTE Diesel23%


11%

CRTE Diesel12%

GITS Energy Audit - Plant Wise Annual Energy Cost Distribution (INR Basis)


GRTE Diesel


CRTE Diesel

Annual Energy Cost = INR 1,87,54,568


The key knowledge from the above analyses is that use of HSD in thermal applications is

recommended over the use of Grid Electricity, since it is both cost effective and cleaner

compared to Grid Electricity.

Figure 3 Annual Energy Source GHG Emissions Distribution (MT CO2e basis)

4.1.1 Grid Electrical Energy Consumption

Grid Electricity is provided to both GRTE and CRTE sites from Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution Company Ltd. GRTE/RTC has HT-I N Time of Day (TOD) tariff and CRTE has LT-V B II

Time of Day (TOD) tariff. Table 4 presents details of the tariff structure applicable for the GRTE

and CRTE Units. Details of incentives from the Time-Of-Day (TOD) Structure can be seen in Table

5.

Table 4 Tariff Structure for GRTE and CRTE

Plant Name GRTE/RTC CRTE Units

Commercial Tariff (N.T) HT-I N LT- V B II

Contracted Demand (N.T) 700 100 KVA

Mini. Billed (% of Contracted Demand) 50% 50%

Conventional Demand Charges 220 150 INR/KVA

Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges 150% 150%

Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges 330 225 INR/KVA

kWh Charges 6.71 6.98 INR/Unit


GRTE Diesel10%

CRTE Grid Electricity13%

CRTE Diesel5%

GITS Energy Audit - Plant Wise GHG Emissions Distribution (MT CO₂e Basis)


GRTE Diesel


CRTE Diesel

Annual GHG Emission = 2,191 MT CO₂e


Electricity Duty 9.30% 9.30%

Tax on sale 0.09 0.09 INR/Unit

Conventional Demand Charges (Old tariff) 190 130 INR/KVA

Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges (Old tariff)

150% 150%

Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges (Old tariff)

285 195 INR/KVA

KWH Charges (Old tariff) 6.33 7.01 INR/Unit

Electricity Duty (Old tariff) 9.30% 9.00%

Tax on sale (old tariff) 0.08 0.08 INR/Unit

Table 5 Time-of-Day (TOD) Structure

Details Zone A (22:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs)

Zone B (06:00 hrs to 09:00 hrs & 12:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs)

Zone C (09:00 hrs to 12:00 hrs)

Zone D (18:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs)

Incentive / Disincentive (INR/ kWh)

-1.5 0 0.8 1.1

Baseline electrical energy consumption was determined through a review of the electricity bills

paid by the facility over a 19-month period (January 2015 to July 2016) for the GRTE plant and

over a 20-month period (January 2015 to August 2016) for the CRTE plant.

Figure 4 shows the monthly electricity consumption in kWh of both the plants. The maximum

electricity consumption (both plants combined) was 1,52,382 units recorded in October 2015.

The minimum electricity consumption 86,862 units recorded in November 2015. The average

monthly consumption of 1,15,213 kWh/month can be taken as present energy benchmark and

the goal of the energy conservation process, the ultimate desired outcome of the Energy Audit

process, is to identify possibilities for reducing this benchmark energy consumption to the

greatest extent feasible. Figure 5 shows the monthly electricity charges paid to Maharashtra

State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. New tariffs for both HT and LT consumers came into

effect from July 2015. The contracted demand for the GRTE Unit was increased from 450 kVA to

700 kVA from June 2015. The maximum monthly electricity charge was INR 13,59,254 paid in

October 2015. The minimum monthly electricity charge was INR 7,94,990 paid in June 2015. The

average monthly electricity charge for both plants was calculated to be INR 10,66,214. The

normalized average electricity charge for the manufacturing unit is calculated by dividing the

total annual electricity cost (energy charges – INR 96,41,298) with the total energy (in kWh)

used. This was calculated to be 6.71 INR/kWh for GRTE and 7.23 INR/kWh for CRTE. Their

average which comes to 6.97 INR/kWh was used as the basis of all energy cost saving modeling

activities conducted for the project. It has to be noted that the total annual electrical energy

cost (including fixed charges, demand charges etc.) was INR 1,27,94,562 and the resultant gross

electricity cost per kWh was therefore 9.25 INR/kWh. This value however has only academic

significance with respect to energy savings calculations as it does not truly specifically address

the energy cost but rather the total cost of supply. The above analysis has been summarized in


Table 6 and Table 7 below. Other relevant details of the energy bills have been presented in

Appendix I-A and Appendix I-BError! Reference source not found..

Figure 4 Monthly Electricity Consumption

2

Figure 5 Monthly Electricity Cost

2 The bills for the month of August 2015 for GRTE plant and the months of May 2015 and August 2015 for CRTE plant were unavailable and hence, remain unrepresented in the charts.

8795 95 91

100

71

103

0

125137

65

100

7791

101 105113

88

114

19

21 15 16 -

21

19

-

21

16

22

16

16

19

20 16

13

18

21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Elec

tric

ity

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (k

Wh

)

Thou

sand

s

Monthly

Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh/month)

GRTE_Electricity Consumption (kWh/month) CRTE_Electricity Consumption (kWh/month)


The tables below show the demand recorded per month. The average recorded demand per

month for the GRTE plant was 456 kVA and for the CRTE plant was 83 kVA. The average billed

demand per month at the GRTE plant hasn’t exceed the contracted demand ever since the

contracted demand has been increased to 700 kVA. For the CRTE plant however, when

compared with the contracted/sanctioned demand of 100 kVA, the excess average maximum

demand per month was estimated to be 27.1 kVA. The monetary impact of this routine practice

of exceeding contract demand leads to an average monthly penalty charge of 5,950 INR/Month

stemming from a penalty charge of INR 225 per kVA of excess demand. A consistent excess

demand of 34 kVA has been observed and it has been learnt from the concerned authority

during the audit that the company was in the process of applying for a higher contracted

demand (140 kVA) which should resolve this issue. The total excess demand charge during the

analyzed 18-month period amounts to INR 1,07,100 which represents 3.4% of the total energy

cost for the CRTE plant.

2.1 2.21.5 1.5

0.0

1.9 1.8 1.9 1.52.2 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.0

8.0 7.68.3 7.9

6.8

6.1

8.8

10.7 12.1

6.2

9.0

6.7

7.98.6 9.3 10.2

7.8

9.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Ele

ctri

city

Co

st (I

NR

)

Lakh

s

Monthly

Monthly Electricity Cost (INR/month)

CRTE_Electricity Cost (INR/month) GRTE_Electricity Cost (INR/month)


Table 6 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Plant-wise

Detail

GRTE CRTE

Units All Charges Included

Only Energy Charges

All Charges Included

Only Energy Charges

Average Monthly Energy Consumption

97,621 17,592 kWh/month

Annual Energy Consumption

11,71,447 2,11,107 kWh/year

Average Monthly Demand

456 83 kVA

Average Monthly Load

456 79 kW

Average Monthly Excess Demand

0.28 27 kVA

Average Monthly Excess Demand Charges

79 5,950 INR/month

Annual Excess Demand Charge

950 71,400 INR/year

Annual Excess Demand Charge %

0.0% 3.4% %

Average Specific Energy Cost

8.61 6.71 9.89 7.23 INR/kWh

Average Monthly Energy Cost

8,40,979 6,55,278 1,74,055 1,27,273 INR/month

Annual Energy Cost 1,00,91,751 78,63,336 20,88,656 15,27,273 INR/year


Table 7 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined

Detail All Charges Included Only Energy Charges Units

Avg. Monthly Energy Consumption 1,15,213 kWh/month

Annual Energy Consumption 13,82,555 kWh/year

Avg. Monthly Load 535 kVA

Avg. Specific Energy Cost 9.25 6.97 INR/kWh

Avg. Monthly Energy Cost 10,66,214 8,03,441 INR/month

Annual Energy Cost 1,27,94,562 96,41,298 INR/year

Annual Equivalent Thermal Energy 4,978 GJ/year

Figure 6 Monthly Power Demand - GRTE

5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Po

we

r D

em

an

d (

kV

A)

Month

Monthly Power Demand - GRTE

Contracted Demand (kVA) Excess Demand (kVA)


Figure 7 Monthly Power Demand - CRTE

4.1.2 Captive Power Generation (Diesel)

Captive Power Generation at the Gits Food Products Manufacturing Unit is accomplished by two

Diesel Generator (DG) sets of capacities 600 kVA and 125 kVA located in GRTE and CRTE

respectively. DG sets are employed as backup power sources during power outages. Figure 8

presents the historical usage data (from Jan 2016 to July 2016) for the DG Sets and indicates that

DG sets run for approximately 13 hours per month at GRTE and approximately 12 hours per

month at CRTE. Figure 9Figure 9 and Figure 10 provide details of diesel consumption and energy

(kWh) generation by the DG Sets over the 7-month period. The total diesel consumption

recorded over the 7-month period by both the DG sets was 7,008 Liters which led to generation

of 19,476 kWh. The average energy generated per liter of diesel was thus 2.78 kWh/liter.

Additional details related to DG set usage and diesel consumption etc. have been provided in

Appendix II.

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

18 18 18 18 18 18 20 2034 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160P

ow

er

De

man

d (k

VA

)

Month

Monthly Power Demand - CRTE

Contracted Demand (kVA) Excess Demand (kVA)


Figure 8 DG Sets Running Hours

Figure 9 DG Sets Diesel Consumption

1.1 5.7 4.3 5.8

14.0

30.8 30.0

12.6 3.0 4.5

24.1 6.6

18.0

13.0

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16

DG

Se

ts o

pe

rati

on

al h

ou

rs/m

on

th

Month

DG Sets - Running Hours

GRTE (600 KVA) [hrs] CRTE (125 kVA) [hrs]

121 330

469 568

923

1,551

1,907

31

9

87

27

213

321

451

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500


Die

sel c

on

sum

ed

(lit

ers)

Month

DG Sets - Diesel Consumption

GRTE (liters) CRTE (liters)


Figure 10 DG Sets Energy Generation

Table 8 summarizes the analysis of DG sets. Table 8 DG Set Summary

DG ID No GRTE (600 kVA) CRTE (125 kVA)

Model Cummins Kirloskar

Compression Ratio 14.1 16.1

Exhaust Temperature @100% loading (deg C)

453 N/A3

Exhaust Temperature @60% loading (deg C)

325 N/A

Rated Output kWe@ 100% load 500 N/A

Rated Fuel Consumption (ltrs/hr) @ 100% load

123.9 N/A

Average Diesel Consumption (ltr/month)

838 163

Average hours in operation (hrs/month)

13.1 11.7

Average Electricity Generated per month (kWh/month)

2,654 128

Average Power Output (kW) 212 11.0

Specific Fuel Consumption (ltrs/kWh) 0.39 1.70

Average Diesel Cost (INR/month) 54.1 54.1

Average Fuel Cost (INR/month) 45,336 8,818

3 Data unavailable in Kirloskar brochure for the corresponding DG set

200 800

1,220 1,800

2,240

5,180

7,140

24

24

24

20

68

296

440

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000


Ene

rgy

Ge

ne

rate

d (k

Wh

)

Month

DG Sets - Energy Generation (kWh)

GRTE (kWh) CRTE (kWh)


4.1.3 High Speed Diesel for Boilers

In this section, an overview of the consumption of high speed diesel for boiler operation has

been presented. The cost of steam generation was determined through fuel consumption

measurement and recording the corresponding steam generation. The fuel and water levels in

the respective storage tanks were measured for a test period to calculate the fuel consumption

and steam generation for boilers in both the plants. The trials conducted yield an average cost of

3.91 INR/kg of steam. In the absence of sophisticated and accurate weighing systems available

on site, it is likely that the trial data may deviate from actual operational performance.

Table 9 Boiler Fuel Consumption & Steam Generation Summary

Boiler ID Annual Fuel Consumption [lts/year]

Annual Fuel Cost [INR/year]

Annual Steam Generation [kg/year]

Cost of Steam (INR/ kg)

Boiler GRTE 46,810 25,31,612 6,61,436 3.83

Boiler CRTE 40,942 22,14,256 5,54,660 3.99

Total 87,752 47,45,868 12,16,096 3.91

4.1.4 Plant Load Distribution and Area-Wise Energy Consumption Patterns

While understanding the cumulative energy consumption of the physical plant units was vital, it

was of even greater significance to dissect this total energy consumption across energy

consuming systems and sub-systems to identify the key energy consuming hotspots to be able

to integrate them into an energy conservation plan for the plant. In addition to understanding

the average energy consumption profile per month, power analysis equipment (ALM 32 – Digital

Power Analysis Equipment) was deployed for gauging diurnal patterns of energy consumption

i.e. the magnitude and periods of occurrence of maximum and minimum power demand.

The date and time durations of assessment for the main incomers of both GRTE and CRTE plants

have been mentioned in Table 10.

Table 10 Feeder Assessment Time Duration

Feeder ID Date Time Duration

Main Incomer – GRTE 22nd August 2016 17 hours

Main Incomer – CRTE 25th August 2016 23 Hours

The maximum and minimum active power consumption 476.3 kW and 43.0 kW were recorded

on 22nd August 2016 at 14:10 hrs and 23rd August 2016 at 00:40 hrs in GRTE plant and 139.6 kW

and 8.894 W (0.00889 kW) was recorded on 25th August 2016 at 12:16 hrs and 23:02 hrs in CRTE

Plant. The maximum total power consumption (kVA) were recorded to be 477.9 kW and 141.0

kW. The power factor at maximum power consumption (kW/kVA) was 0.996 for GRTE and 0.99

for CRTE. The power measurement highlights and trends for both incomers have been shown in

the figures below.

4 Lowest non-zero value considered as minimum


Figure 11 GRTE Power Consumption Highlights

Figure 12 GRTE Power Consumption Trend


Figure 13 CRTE Power Consumption Highlights

Figure 14 CRTE Power Consumption trend


4.1.5 Power Factor

Average PF for the GRTE Unit as per historical data is 1.00 and for the CRTE Unit is 0.96. The

Utility Power Company charges penalty for PF violation only if the PF is below 0.90. The power

factor values are satisfactory and do not need considerable improvement.

The recorded values from past bills have been summarized in Table 11 below.

Table 11 Power Factor Trends

Assessment of results obtained from measurement using power analyzers showed that the

maximum and minimum power factors 0.997 and 0.447 were recorded on 22nd August 2016 at

16:05 hrs and 23rd August 2016 at 04:00 hrs respectively at the GRTE plant. At the CRTE Plant,

the maximum and minimum power factors 0.998 and 0.1075 were recorded on 26th August 2016

at 05:32 hrs and 07:22 hrs respectively. The power factor measurement highlights and trends for

both incomers have been shown in the figures below.

5 Least non-zero value considered as minimum Power Factor

Month Recorded PF. @ GRTE Recorded PF. @ CRTE

Aug-16 - 0.954

Jul-16 1.000 0.963

Jun-16 1.000 0.954

May-16 1.000 0.957

Apr-16 1.000 0.957

Mar-16 1.000 0.957

Feb-16 0.998 0.956

Jan-16 0.999 0.955

Dec-15 0.999 0.953

Nov-15 0.995 0.960

Oct-15 1.000 0.957

Sep-15 1.000 0.958

Aug-15 - -

Jul-15 1.000 0.960

Jun-15 1.000 0.959

May-15 1.000 -

Apr-15 1.000 0.969

Mar-15 1.000 0.960

Feb-15 1.000 0.967

Jan-15 1.000 0.961

Average 1.000 0.959


Figure 15 GRTE Power Factor Highlights

Figure 16 GRTE Power Factor Trend


Figure 17 CRTE Power Factor Highlights

Figure 18 CRTE Power Factor trend

4.1.6 System-Wide Energy Performance Assessment & Energy Conservation

Opportunities

4.1.6.1 Load Curve Management

The most overarching analysis conducted during the Energy Audit related to the potential for

reducing energy cost for the Client without any additional expenditure on equipment or

modifying operation processes. This is in recognition of the fact that rescheduling energy

consuming activities which afford flexibility to occur during off-peak hours can lead to direct

savings through alignment with the TOD tariff incentive time-table. As presented earlier, the

TOD tariff structure incentivizes energy consumption during the “off-peak” hours of 10 pm to 6

am. The analysis of possible energy cost conservation opportunities has been presented below.


Table 12 TOD Losses / Gain Summary

TOD Details Zone A (22:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs)

Zone B (06:00 hrs to 09:00 hrs & 12:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs)

Zone C (09:00 hrs to 12:00 hrs)

Zone D (18:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs)

Incentive / Disincentive (INR/ kWh)

-1.5 0 .80 1.1

GRTE Unit Consumption (kWh/year)

1,75,444 5,91,578 2,55,944 1,48,488

CRTE Unit Consumption (kWh/year)

24,995 1,16,449 60,484 9,183

Loss / Gain during the Period (INR) GRTE

2,63,166 (Gain) 0 2,04,755 (Loss) 1,63,337 (Loss)

Loss / Gain during the Period (INR) CRTE

37,492 (Gain) 0 48,387 (Loss) 10,101 (Loss)

Based on the above analysis, it was calculated that the Client currently bears an increased

energy cost of INR 2.8 Lakhs (GRTE and CRTE combined) approximately annually due to energy

consumption during peak periods of 9 am to 12 pm and 6 pm to 10 pm. Conversely, the plant

benefits in the range of approximately INR 3 Lakhs by consuming close to 2 Lakh kWh out of the

annual consumption of 13.8 Lakh kWh during the ‘incentivized period’ of 10 pm to 6 am. While

it might not be possible to shift many of the operations (1. since it’s batch production and 2.

since it would jeopardize the safety of workers working during late hours) to off-peak hours, it

would be beneficial to identify all possible activities that can be re-scheduled to take advantage

of TOD tariff incentives. A simple analysis indicates that transferring even 15% of the peak-

period demand (from Zone C 9:00 to 12:00 hrs and Zone D 18:00 to 22:00 hrs) to the 10 pm to 6

am period would save INR 1.7 lakhs annually6.

4.1.6.2 Increase Contract Demand for CRTE plant

The contract demand of the CRTE Plant at the time of the audit was 100 kVA/month while the

maximum demand recorded consistently touched 134 kVA. Table 13 presents a summary of the

recorded Maximum Monthly Demand across an 18-month period with the excess demand

charges paid per month; other details pertaining to monthly energy consumption, power drawn

etc. are presented in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 13 Monthly Maximum & Excess Demand (CRTE)

Month Tariff Contract Demand (kVA)

Max. Billed Demand (kVA)

Recorded PF

Excess Demand (kVA)

Excess Demand Charges (INR)

Aug-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.954 34 13,050

Jul-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.963 34 13,050

Jun-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.954 34 13,050

6 INR 1.7 Lakhs/year was calculated by summation of the financial benefit of shifting 15% of the Zone C and Zone D energy consumption to Zone A.


May-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.957 34 13,050

Apr-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.957 34 13,050

Mar-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.957 34 13,050

Feb-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.956 34 13,050

Jan-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.955 34 13,050

Dec-15 LT-V B II 100 134 0.953 34 13,050

Nov-15 LT-V B II 100 134 0.960 34 13,050

Oct-15 LT-V B II 100 120 0.957 20 11,700

Sep-15 LT-V B II 100 120 0.958 20 11,700

Aug-15 LT-V B II 100

Jul-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.960 18 11,550

Jun-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.959 18 10,010

May-15 LT-V B II 100

Apr-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.969 18 10,010

Mar-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.960 18 10,010

Feb-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.967 18 10,010

Jan-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.961 18 10,010

Total 488 1,07,100

As mentioned in Section 4.1.1, the excess average maximum demand per month was found to

be 27.1 kVA. Above result shows that over an 18-month period,7 INR 1,07,100 was paid as a

penalty due to excess demand. It was learnt from the concerned authority during the audit that

the company was in the process of applying for a higher contracted demand (140 kVA) to fulfil

the consistent excess demand of 34 kVA, which should resolve this issue. By increasing contract

demand to 140 KVA, the plant can save approximately INR 70,211 per year (estimated by

comparing the payable amounts for the sample 18-month period using revised contracted

demand).

Table 14 Estimated Savings from Increased Contracted Demand at CRTE

Month Tariff New Contract Demand [kVA]

Max. Billed Demand [kVA]

Total Payable Charges (INR)

Estimated Savings (INR)

Aug-16 LT-V B II 140 134 95,813 8,361

Jul-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,95,052 8,361

Jun-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,74,175 8,361

May-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,27,756 8,361

Apr-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,52,303 8,361

Mar-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,80,620 8,361

Feb-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,73,328 8,361

7 Excluding the months of August 2015 and May 2015, details for which weren’t available for use in analysis


Jan-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,49,642 8,361

Dec-15 LT-V B II 140 134 1,53,924 8,361

Nov-15 LT-V B II 140 134 2,06,646 8,361

Oct-15 LT-V B II 140 120 1,46,415 4,919

Sep-15 LT-V B II 140 120 1,87,557 4,919

Aug-15 LT-V B II 140 -

Jul-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,75,035 4,427

Jun-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,81,902 3,836

May-15 LT-V B II 140 -

Apr-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,46,465 3,826

Mar-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,48,449 3,826

Feb-15 LT-V B II 140 118 2,16,855 3,826

Jan-15 LT-V B II 140 118 2,04,030 3,826

Average 1,67,554 5,851

Annual Average 20,10,643 70,211

4.1.6.3 DG Set Energy Conservation Opportunities

Fuel Saving Device - FLUX Maxiox

FLUX Maxiox is a magnetic device which generates a magnetic field that is rendered exactly perpendicular to the fuel flowing through the fuel line on which it is installed. This magnetic field is scientifically designed to impart certain physical changes in the fuel thereby causing the fuel to burn more efficiently.

In simplistic terms, FLUX Maxiox functions in two distinct ways:

1) The magnetic field of the device interacts with the hydrocarbon fuel to make oxygen react better with the fuel and thus renders the burning of the fuel more efficient.

2) The magnetic field physically changes the hydrogen part of the fuel into a higher energized isomer which gives more energy output for the same amount of fuel burnt, thereby giving considerable savings in the fuel consumed.

By installing FLUX Maxiox in both the DG sets (GRTE and CRTE), approximately 601 liters/year of high speed diesel can be saved which would lead to annual savings of 32,487 INR. The savings depend on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for the DG Sets at GRTE and CRTE. The estimations have been done using the existing usage pattern as a reference. The annual savings analysis by installing FLUX Maxiox has been presented in the table below.

Table 15 Saving Estimates through Fuel Saving Device in DG Sets - FLUX Maxiox

Parameter GRTE CRTE

Fuel Saving Device FLUX Maxiox FLUX Maxiox

Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1

Average Fuel Consumption - without FLUX Maxiox (ltrs/year) 10,062 1,952

Estimated Fuel Consumption – with FLUX Maxiox (ltrs/year) 9,559 1,855

Fuel Savings (%) 5% 5%


Annual Fuel Savings (Ltrs/year) 503 98

Fuel Cost - without FLUX Maxiox (INR/year) 5,44,156 1,05,587

Fuel Cost – with FLUX Maxiox (INR/year) 5,16,948 1,00,307

Capital Cost of FLUX Maxiox 1,44,000 72,000

Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 27,208 5,279

Payback Period (years) 5.29 13.6

Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 20.6 4.00

Use of KM+ Fuel Additives

KM+ instantly improves the quality of liquid fuel the moment it is mixed. It is non-toxic,

environmentally friendly and biodegradable. KM+ enables fuel to be dispersed to smaller fuel

droplets and speeds up the fuel burning process to completion before piston is in its upward

stroke. The key benefits of fast burning fuel are reduction in black smoke, toxic gases, wastage

of unburned fuel and reduction in greenhouse gas.

By adding recommended additives to the fuel, approximately 1,201 liters of high speed diesel per year can be saved which would lead to annual savings of 93,940 INR. The savings depend on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for the DG Sets at GRTE and CRTE. The estimations have been done using the existing usage pattern as a reference. The annual savings analysis by using fuel additives has been shown in Table 16 below.

Table 16 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives in DG Sets

Parameter GRTE CRTE

Fuel Saving Additives KM+ KM+

HSD Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1

Average Fuel Consumption – without additives (ltrs/year) 10,062 1,962

Fuel Savings 10% 10%

Estimated Fuel Consumption - with additives (ltrs/year) 9,055 1,757

Fuel Cost - without additives (INR/year) 5,44,156 1,05,587

Fuel Additive Cost (INR/ltr) 3,000 3,000

Fuel Additive Quantity (ltrs/year) 6.0 1.2

Cost of Fuel Additives (INR/year) 18,111 3,514

Fuel Cost – with additives (INR/year) 5,07,851 98,542

Annual Fuel Savings (ltrs/year) 1,006 195

Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 36,305 7,044

Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 41.2 8.00

Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Utilities

• Load Curve Management: Shifting even 15% of the peak-period demand (from Zone C

9:00 to 12:00 hrs and Zone D 18:00 to 22:00 hrs) to the incentivized period between

22:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs would save the plants INR 1.7 Lakhs annually.

• Increase Contract Demand from 100 kVA to 140 kVA: By increasing contract demand to

140 KVA, the plant can save approximately INR 0.70 lakhs annually.


• Fuel Saving Device (FLUX Maxiox) in DG Sets: Installation of FLUX Maxiox would result in

fuel savings of 5% for each DG Set, with associated cost savings of INR 27,208 per year

and INR 5,279 per year for the GRTE and CRTE DG Sets respectively. The resultant energy

savings would be 20.6 GJ/year and 4.0 GJ/year respectively.

• Use of KM+ Fuel Additive in DG Sets: Adding the fuel additive with HSD would result in

fuel savings of 10% for each DG Set, leading to cost savings of INR 36,305 per year and

INR 7,044 per year for the DG Sets at GRTE and CRTE respectively. The annual energy

savings from this measure would be 41.2 GJ/year and 8.0 GJ/year respectively.


4.2 Lighting System

4.2.1 Lighting System Performance Assessment

The lighting load across both the facilities is estimated to be 19.5 kW, of which 12% is from CRTE

plant and 88% is from GRTE. The lighting load represents approximately 3.6% of the average

monthly electrical load of both plants combined. Lighting is an essential service required by

occupants of indoor and outdoor spaces and is designed to perform a functional and aesthetic

role as per specific requirements that are addressed during the lighting system design phase.

The intensity levels (lux, lumens per m2 area) required by occupants vary with application and

area of usage. There are recommendations provided by the BEE to evaluate the efficacy of the

lighting installed in spaces as a function of use cases. The measured lux values across both

facilities are presented in Appendix III-A and Appendix III-B. The measured lux values were

compared with the recommended lux values8 and the resulting comparison for areas with higher

than required lux levels is presented in Table 17 below for major indoor areas of the facility.

8 IS 6665:1972, Bureau of Indian Standards, Code of Practice for Industrial Lighting and Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities - Chapter 3.8 Lighting System, Table 8.2.


Table 17 Lighting System –Illuminance Assessment for CRTE Plant

Section Area Name Average Lux Level (Measured)

Lux Illumination Assessment

CRTE Pouching 60 Acceptable

CRTE Cabin (Retort Control Room) 75 Acceptable

CRTE Corridor 34 Acceptable

CRTE Retort Room 67 Acceptable

CRTE Maintenance 43 Acceptable

CRTE Crate Storage 131 Acceptable

CRTE Utensil washing area 140 Acceptable

CRTE Cooking section 121 Acceptable

CRTE Preparation Area 58 Acceptable

CRTE Refrigeration Area 38 Acceptable

CRTE Material Reception 32 Acceptable

CRTE Dry Material Store 36 Acceptable

CRTE Cabin 31 Acceptable

CRTE Process Section 31 Acceptable

CRTE Near main entrance - vegetable area

52 Acceptable


Table 18 Lighting System – Illuminance Assessment for GRTE Plant

Section Area Name Average Lux Level (Measured)

Lux Illumination Assessment

GRTE/RTC Mini Storage Space behind stairs

80 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Storage of Spices and laminate rolls

61 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Main storage space 32 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Main storage space 32 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Urad Dal Storage 61 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Dispatch Section 216 Not Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Lab (next to dispatch) 64 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Wrapping + Storage 60 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Export finished goods store 27 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC FFS 24 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Dryer and Mixer 41 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Dairymate section 168 Not Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Retort Section 166 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Pouching -GRTE 66 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) 58 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Preparation Section 55 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch)

93 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch)

107 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch)

107 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Entrance Lobby 159 Not Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Corridor/ Stairs 163 Not Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Admin Office - Reception Area 97 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Admin Office - Office area 30 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Around Manager’s Cabin 41 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Kitchen (QA lab) 98 Acceptable

GRTE/RTC Lab 2 32 Acceptable

GRTE/ RTC Manager’s Cabin 70 Acceptable


Lighting technology advancement since the advent of CFL, LED bulbs provide opportunities for

significant energy savings through equipment replacement. A listing of high energy efficiency

lighting devices and their respective efficiency attributes (lumens/watt) is provided in Table 19

below.

Table 19 Lamp Efficiency Metrics

Type Luminous Efficiency (Lumens/ Watt)

PL 60

FTL 25

Bulb 15

CFL 60

Halogen Spot Light 25

LED 75

T5 25

Metal Halide 75

Halogen FL 80

HPMV 50

Extensive field measurements with Lux Meters were carried out throughout the indoor spaces

of the facility and these measurements and primary analysis is tabulated in Appendix III-A and

Appendix III-B. A summary of the lighting fixture types that comprise the lighting load, the

respective load and their consequent energy consumption is presented in the Table 20 below.

Table 20 Fixture-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary

Fixture Type Application Qty. Load (kW) Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)

Energy Cost (INR/yr)

T5 Tube Indoor 566 16.1 56,250 5,20,554

CFL Indoor 134 2.46 8,614 79,719

LED Indoor 50 0.92 3,214 29,746

Total 750 19.5 68,079 6,30,019

The assessment indicates that the facility has 750 lighting fixtures leading to an annual energy

consumption of approximately 68.1 MWh of electricity with an energy cost of INR 6.3 lakhs per

year. In terms of annual energy consumption and annual energy cost, this represents

approximately 4.92% of the total energy consumed (kWh/year) and 6.53% of the energy bill paid

by Gits for both the plants.

This distribution of lighting load by fixture type is provided in Figure 19 below. It has been

observed that 82% of the lighting load is satisfied using T5 tubes.

Figure 19 Lighting Load Fixture Type-wise Distribution


The assessment also allowed for lighting load to be determined per plant. Table 21 shows the

plant-wise summary of lighting loads and the corresponding energy consumptions. It is obvious

that a majority of the lighting load (88% of total load) is generated at the GRTE plant. Area-wise

analysis gave insights into the distribution of lighting load at both the plants. At CRTE, the

following areas generated close to 51% of the total lighting load:

• Crate Storage Area

• Preparation Area

• Vegetables area (near main entrance)

At GRTE, around 50% of the lighting load was generated at the following areas:

• Storage Area (next to dispatch)

• JBT Crates and Pouch Storage Area

• Admin Office – Office Area

• Wrapping Section

Table 21 Plant-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary

Plant Name No. of fixtures

Load (kW)

Energy Consumption (kWh/yr.)

Energy Cost (INR/yr)

CRTE 80 2.3 8,000 74,034

GRTE/ RTC 670 17.2 60,079 5,55,985

Total 750 19.5 68,079 6,30,019

A vital parameter for assessing the effectiveness of Lighting Systems is the Installed Load

Efficacy Ratios (ILER); a ratio of the average maintained illuminance provided on a horizontal

working plane per circuit watt with general lighting of an interior to a recommended target

level. It is a dimensionless quantity comprised of a ratio of two quantities (lux per watt per

CFL12.65%

T5 mini-tube0.51%

T5 Tube82.11%

LED

4.72%

Fixture Type-wise Lighting Load distribution

CFL T5 mini-tube T5 Tube LED


square meter, lux/W/m²). It is defined by the following mathematical relationships which

necessitate the calculation of another dimensionless quantity, the Room Index which quantifies

the relative shape of a given room and incorporates the impact of the mounting height of

lighting fixtures.

𝐼𝐿𝐸𝑅 = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑢𝑥/𝑊/𝑚2

𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑙𝑢𝑥/𝑊/𝑚2

𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝑅𝐼) = 𝐿 ×𝑊

𝐻𝑚 ×(𝐿 + 𝑊)

Where, L = length of the room interior (m), W = width of the room interior (m), and Hm = mounting height of the fixture (m)

In the ILER calculation procedure presented above, the ‘Target’ lux/W/m2 is determined

according to the following table as a function of the Room Index.

Table 22 Target lux/W/m2 as a function of Room Index

Room Index

Commercial Lighting (Offices, Retail Stores etc.) Std. or good colour rending (Ra: 40-85)

Industrial Lighting (Manufacturing areas, workshops) Std. or good colour rending (Ra: 40-85)

Industrial Lighting where Std. or good colour rending is not essential (Ra: 20-40)

Avg. Target Lux/W/m²

0.25 22 22 40 31.0

0.50 27 27 44 35.5

0.75 30 30 48 39.3

1.00 33 33 52 42.5

1.25 36 36 55 45.5

1.50 39 39 58 48.5

2.00 42 42 61 51.5

2.50 44 44 64 54.0

3.00 46 46 65 55.5

4.00 48 48 66 57.0

5.00 49 49 67 58.0

Table 23 ILER Color Code

ILER Assessment Color Code

0.75 or over Satisfactory

0.51 - 0.74 Review Suggested

0.5 or less Urgent Action Required


ILER values were calculated for major indoor areas of the facility and have been presented in

Table 24 below along with recommended values for ILER9. The Table also indicates a priority

list of areas that need immediate attention to achieve immediate energy and cost reduction.

Table 24 ILER Assessment

Plant Name Area Name ILER Assessment

CRTE Pouching Section 0.43 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Cabin (Retort Control Room) 0.22 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Corridor Section 0.13 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Retort Room 0.40 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Maintenance 0.24 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Crate Storage 0.36 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Utensil washing area 1.18 Satisfactory

CRTE Cooking section 0.97 Satisfactory

CRTE Preparation Area 0.37 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Refrigeration Area 0.25 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Material Reception 0.23 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Dry Material Store 0.27 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Cabin 0.42 Urgent Action Required

CRTE Process Section 0.54 Review Suggested

CRTE Near main entrance - vegetable area 0.25 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Mini Storage Space behind stairs 0.43 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Storage of Spices and laminate rolls 0.33 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 0.38 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 0.76 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Urad Dal Storage 0.32 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Dispatch Section 1.30 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Lab (next to dispatch) 0.69 Review Suggested

GRTE/ RTC wrapping + storage 0.74 Review Suggested

GRTE/ RTC export finished goods store 1.01 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC FFS 0.38 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Dryer and Mixer 0.79 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Dairymate section 3.25 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Retort Section 1.42 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Pouching Section 0.47 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) 0.49 Urgent Action Required

9 Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy, Energy Performance Assessment for Equipment & Utility Systems, Chapter 4.14, Buildings and Commercial Establishments, Table 14.6


GRTE/ RTC Preparation Section 0.66 Review Suggested

GRTE/ RTC JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch) 0.23 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch) 0.74 Review Suggested

GRTE/ RTC Entrance Lobby 5.99 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Corridor/ Stairs 1.60 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Reception Area 0.33 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Office area 0.09 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Around laboratory 1.09 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Kitchen (QA lab) 1.04 Satisfactory

GRTE/ RTC Lab 2 0.34 Urgent Action Required

GRTE/ RTC Cabin 0.89 Satisfactory

4.2.2 Lighting Recommendations and Energy Conservation Opportunities

4.2.2.1 ILER Improvement

ILER Ratios of 0.75 an above are desired and considered satisfactory while values within the

range of 0.51 to 0.74 represent areas wherein improvement of lighting efficiency through the

following measures can be considered:

• higher lumens/watt fixtures through more efficient technology

• improved maintenance and cleaning of luminaries and room walls to reduce impact of

dust and dirt accumulation leading to illumination loss including wall repainting

• reducing lux levels (by eliminating a fraction of the installed fixtures) if higher than

required or recommended illuminance levels are prevalent

ILER values lower than 0.5 should serve as an alarm for immediate action to improve lighting

efficiency per the measures above. As presented in the tables above, the ILER values are

generally much lower than 0.5 in most areas and require immediate attention. The ILER can be

improved by reducing the mounting height of the fixtures and cleaning the fixtures periodically.

The potential energy and associated cost savings from improving ILER values can be estimated

by comparing the energy requirement in the current situation relative to the energy

requirement for a perfect scenario with ILER equal to 1.0. The savings estimate for the Plant is

presented in Table 25 below and indicates a total energy savings potential of approximately INR

3 Lakhs through improvement in ILER values across both the plants.

Table 25 Energy and Cost Savings from ILER Improvement

Plant Area Energy Saving (kWh/yr)

Cost Saving (INR/yr)

GHG Savings (MTCO₂e/year)

CRTE Pouching Section 388 3,591 0.46

CRTE Cabin (Retort Control Room) 77 711 0.09

CRTE Corridor 170 1,575 0.20

CRTE Retort Room 469 4,343 0.56


CRTE Maintenance 444 4,110 0.53

CRTE Crate Storage 999 9,245 1.19

CRTE Cooking section 19 172 0.02

CRTE Preparation Area 982 9,092 1.17

CRTE Refrigeration Area 74 684 0.09

CRTE Material Reception 75 697 0.09

CRTE Dry Material Store 71 660 0.09

CRTE Cabin 57 523 0.07

CRTE Process Section 90 833 0.11

CRTE Vegetable area (Near main entrance)

662 6,126 0.79

GRTE/ RTC Mini Storage Space behind stairs 111 1,028 0.13

GRTE/ RTC Storage of Spices and laminate rolls

2,107 19,496 2.51

GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 2,979 27,572 3.55

GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 83 765 0.10

GRTE/ RTC Urad Dal Storage 795 7,360 0.95

GRTE/ RTC Lab (next to dispatch) 61 561 0.07

GRTE/ RTC wrapping + storage 1,543 14,280 1.84

GRTE/ RTC FFS 488 4,515 0.58

GRTE/ RTC Dryer and Mixer 798 7,389 0.95

GRTE/ RTC Pouching Section 733 6,786 0.87

GRTE/ RTC Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) 403 3,728 0.48

GRTE/ RTC Preparation Section 465 4,304 0.55

GRTE/ RTC JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch)

6,756 62,519 8.06

GRTE/ RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch) 2,376 21,990 2.83

GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Reception Area 672 6,220 0.80

GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Office area 6,774 62,691 8.08

GRTE/ RTC Lab 2 846 7,831 1.01

GRTE/ RTC Cabin 22 200 0.03

Total 32,590 3,01,596 38.9

4.2.2.2 Reduce Excess Illuminance

As indicated in the illuminance assessment earlier, a few indoor areas of the plants are provided with lighting that supersedes standard lux requirements. The areas with higher luminance than necessary in the GRTE plant are Dispatch Section, Dairymate Section, Entrance Lobby and Corridor/Stairs. All areas in the CRTE plant are adequately illuminated. The analysis conducted to ascertain potential energy conservation benefits of eliminating excess lighting fixtures led to the conclusion that aligning lux levels across the plant with standard lux levels could yield energy savings of477 kWh/year and an annual cost saving of approximately INR 4,412 per year without any capital investment.

Table 26 Energy and Cost Saving by Reducing the Lighting Fixtures

Area Power Reduction (kW)

Energy Savings by Reducing Fixtures (kWh/yr)

Demand Reduction (kVA)

Cost Savings (INR/yr)

GHG Savings (MT CO₂e/yr)

Dispatch Section 0.04 153 0.04 1,418 0.18

Dairymate Section 0.01 22 0.01 201 0.03

Entrance Lobby 0.04 148 0.04 1,370 0.18


Corridor/ Stairs 0.04 154 0.04 1,424 0.18

Total 0.13 477 0.14 4,412 0.57

4.2.2.3 Replacement with LED Lights

LED lighting technology affords numerous benefits over conventional lighting systems such as CFL, TFL, HPMV, Metal Halide etc. The primary advantages have been listed below-

• Reliability (no spontaneous failure)

• Emit less heat

• Use less power relative to most conventional lighting systems

• Are more energy efficient relative to conventional lighting systems and consume 50% to 60% lower power than most lighting systems to achieve the same light output

• Quick ON / OFF response

• Free of hazardous materials

• Long lifetimes in the range 40,000 hours to 50,000 (approximately 40 times longer than that of an Incandescent Bulb) which translates to longer service intervals between light replacement

• Flexibility in colors

Table 27 below provides a summary of annual energy cost saving possibilities by usage of

high efficacy LED Lamps to replace the extensively used (around 10 hours per day) T5 tube

lights and CFL Lamps. The model developed for the project accounted for the nuance that

indoor lights can be replaced by widely available LED Bulbs. The analysis indicates that a total

of approximately INR 0.90 Lakhs could be saved through switching from existing lighting

systems to high performance LEDs in indoor lighting scenarios as shown below. It is

understood from conversations with the facility manager that measures are already in place

for replacing the old and existing T5 tubes with LED tubes. The estimated capital cost for the

project would be INR 3.11 Lakhs, yielding a payback period of 3.5 years and an annual energy

conservation and GHG Mitigation potential of 9,722 kWh/year and 11.6 MT CO2e/year,

respectively.

Table 27 Lighting Environmental and Cost Savings Estimate from Equipment Replacement

Details Energy Savings (kWh/yr)


Capital Cost (INR) GHG Mitig. (MT CO2e/yr)

Payback Period (yrs)

T5 to LED 7,188 66,522 3,00,385 8.57 4.52

CFL to LED 2,534 23,447 10,740 3.02 0.46

Total 9,722 89,969 3,11,125 11.6 3.46

4.2.2.4 Other options for Lighting Energy Conservation

Use of Motion / PIR Sensors


Energy consumption from building interiors and exteriors that do not require continual

lighting and cooling due to infrequent occupancy (e.g. stairwell/ corridor and compound

lighting in buildings and fan/light operation in toilets, etc.) can be significantly diminished by

use of Passive Infrared Sensors - PIR Sensors to controls HVAC and lighting fixtures.

Incorporating PIR Sensor-control in tube lights, used 10-12 hours per day (approximate usage

in stairwell lighting applications), can mitigate energy consumption by approximately 160

kWh per fixture. This alternative is even more viable when multiple fittings can be sensed

and controlled by a single PIR sensor.

Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Lighting System

• Luminance Assessment: Reducing the number of fixtures can result in savings of INR 4,412

annually.

• ILER Improvement: Improving ILER to 1.0 can result in savingsupto INR 3,01,596 yearly.

• Replace T5 tubes to LED Light (Indoor): Replacement of all indoor HPMV lights with LED

lights would result in an energy saving of 7,188 kWh/year and an associated cost saving of

approximately INR 66,522 annually. Capital cost of equipment would be around INR 3.0 lakhs

with a payback period of 4.5 years.

• Replace CFL to LED Light (Indoor): Replacement of all CFL bulbs with LED lights would result

in an energy saving of 2,534 kWh/year and an associated cost reduction of approximately INR

23,447 annually. Capital cost of equipment would be around INR 10,740 and payback period

0.5 years.

4.3 HVAC System The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System at both GRTE and CRTE consists of the

following sub-systems which have been employed to achieve the end-uses for various

process cooling, space cooling and comfort cooling needs.

1) Fresh Air Handling Units (AHUs to satisfy fresh air ventilation needs for occupant comfort,

health and safety needs)

2) Cooling Towers (heat rejection from processes using steam and hot water)

Neither AHUs nor Cooling Towers are among the most energy intensive HVAC systems and

this is justified by the findings that AHUs account for just 2.4% and Cooling Towers account

for 2.1% of the total annual energy consumption at both the plants combined. Together,

HVAC systems at Gits are responsible for 4.5% of the annual energy consumption.

Each of the above systems was independently studied to determine performance levels

achieved by them and to estimate overall system efficiencies. The goal was to ascertain the

operational performance as measured relative to the rated capacities to identify scope for

improving the energy efficiency of the equipment.


4.3.1 AHU Performance Assessment

Air Handling Units at the GRTE and CRTE plants fulfil the requirement of fresh air in the

working areas while providing comfort to the occupants. In the context of comfort cooling,

technical literature related to HVAC system design indicates that a temperature band of 22⁰C

– 26⁰C with a relative humidity of 55% is the most appropriate combination for human

comfort. Furthermore, research by the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) specifies that an

indoor temperature of 240C is ideal for thermal comfort for Indians. The goal of Energy Audit-

connected AHUs was to identify potential for optimization of the Air Conditioning system to

deliver comfort in the most economical manner by examining and enhancing technical

performance parameters of the existing equipment, recommending economically feasible

overhauls and any necessary modifications to operation and maintenance protocols being

currently followed.

Fresh-Air Ventilation AHUs

The table below provides an estimate of the operational performance of the Fresh-Air

Ventilation AHUs audited at the plants. The rated power consumption for the installed

systems is 11.8 kW. The measurements indicated that the system consumes an estimated

power of 11.4 kW and leads to an annual energy consumption of approximately 33,179 kWh

to deliver a flow rate of 6,263 m³/hr. The key efficiency parameters for Fresh-Air AHUs are

Static Fan Efficiency and percentage (%) loading.

• Static Fan Efficiency could not be measured at the Plant in almost all instances due to

the absence of pre-existent ports in the ducting to measure suction and discharge

pressure in conjunction with the fact that drilling apertures into the ducting sheets was

highly unfeasible.

• The % loading of the system was determined from a comparison of the measured

power consumption relative to rated power consumption at a system level. AHUs at

both the plants have a high percentage of loading, about 96% loading on average.

Table 28 HVAC System – Fresh-Air Ventilation AHUs Performance Assessment

Sr. No

Location AHU ID Motor Rated (kW)

Meas. Power Cons. (kW)

Meas. Air Flow (m³/hr)

Energy Cons. (kWh/yr)

1 CRTE (Pouching)

AHU1 2.2 2.1 1756 5,998

2

CRTE (Preparation Area + Kitchen)

AHU2 2.2 2.1 1564 6,214

3 GRTE AHU3 3.7 3.6 1373 10,504

4 GRTE AHU4 3.7 3.6 1569 10,462

Total 11.8 11.4 6,263 33,179

The high loading of AHUs and their relatively small-scale application (fresh air ventilation for


Pouching and Preparation Areas) led to the conclusion that there isn’t any considerable energy

conservation opportunity at this stage.

4.3.2 Cooling Towers

4.3.2.1 Cooling Tower Performance Assessment

The table below provides an estimate of the operational performance of the Cooling Towers

audited at the Plant. The GRTE plant has a cooling tower with a rated water flow rate 35

(m3/hr) and a corresponding rated power consumption of pump of 3.73 kW. The total rated

power consumption also includes the power consumption for Cooling Tower Fan which is

7.46 kW. The total rated power of the cooling tower amounts to 11.2 kW. The rated capacity

(TR) detail of the Cooling Tower was unavailable and hence couldn’t be referred to for

comparison. The measurements indicated that the system consumes an estimated total

power (Pumps and Fans) of 8.1 kW and 29,510 kWh/year electrical energy while delivering a

cooling of magnitude 6.7 TR.

The key efficiency parameter for Cooling Towers is the ‘Effectiveness’ defined by the

following mathematical relationships:

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 (ᵒ𝐶) =𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑘𝐶𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑟)

𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝐿𝑃𝐻)

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒(ᵒ𝐶) = 𝐼𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐻𝑜𝑡 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶 − 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶

𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ = 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶 − 𝐴𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑏 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶

𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (%) = 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 + 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ

𝐸𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 (𝑚3

ℎ𝑟) = 0.00085 ∗ 1.8 ∗ 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∗ (𝑇1 − 𝑇2)

Where, Circulation rate = Water flow rate in m3/hr

T1-T2 = Temperature difference between inlet and outlet in ᵒC

𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐷𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 =𝐸𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠

(𝐶. 𝑂. 𝐶 − 1)

Where,

C.O.C = Cycle of concentration, which is the ratio of dissolved solids in circulating water to

the dissolved solid water in makeup water

The assessment presented below indicates Cooling Tower effectiveness measured at the plant is

72.7% compared to the rated effectiveness of 95.5%. Cooling Tower Effectiveness is a key

performance indicator and therefore an indicator of energy efficiency as well. While this


effectiveness seems to be on the lower side, it must be noted that the before entering the

cooling tower, the water passes through a cold well where it gives up some of its heat. The hot

well-cold well concept in play here reduces the amount of work (heat rejection) to be done by

the cooling tower. In cases where the heat rejection is achieved satisfactorily by the cold well

itself, the cooling tower need not be operational. Table 29 shows operational details of the

cooling tower at the plant, and Table 30 shows details of the measured heat load and losses.

The measured heat load for the cooling tower was 22,400 kCal/hr compared to rated heat load

for the cooling tower is 22,40,000 kCal/hr, which indicates that there is hardly any load on the

cooling tower. Just 0.12% of the water inlet is lost to evaporation, which is in line with ASHRAE’s

rule of 1% loss to evaporation for every 7ᵒC drop in water temperature. Based on the

evaporation losses and the cycles of concentration, the blow down loss was estimated to be

0.02 m³/hr. To compensate for these losses, 54 liters of make-up water requirement per hour

has been estimated.

Table 29 Cooling Tower Rated and Measured Performance Overview

Cooling Tower ID

Rated Power (kW)

Measured Power (kW)

Measured Range (ᵒC)

Measured Approach (ᵒC)

Rated Effectiveness (%)

Measured Effectiveness (%)

Annual Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)

GRTE CT-01 11.2 8.1 0.8 0.3 95.52% 72.73% 29,510

Table 30 Cooling tower heat load and losses details

Rated Heat Load (kCal/hr)

Measured Heat Load (kCal/hr)

Evaporation Loss (m³/hr)

COC (Cycles of Concentration)

Blow Down Loss (m³/hr)

Make Up Water Requirement (m³/hr)

22,40,000 22,400 0.034 2.7 0.02 0.054

4.3.2.2 Cooling Tower Energy Conservation Opportunities

Shutting down the Cooling Tower

The range for the cooling tower is less than 1 deg Celsius and the cooling tower seems to

be heavily overdesigned considering the fact that a hot-well cold-well mechanism is in

place. It is recommended to shut down operations of the cooling tower. Table 31 below

presents the projected energy and cost savings estimates if the Cooling Tower is shut

down. This intervention could yield annual energy and cost savings of approximately

29,150 kWh/year and INR 2.73 Lakhs/year, respectively.

Table 31 Shutting Down the cooling Tower – Energy and Cost Saving Estimates

Project Description Energy Savings (kWh/yr)

Annual Savings (INR)

GHG Savings (MT CO2e/yr)

Shutting down the Cooling Tower 29,510 2,73,096 39.9


Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – HVAC System

• Shutting down the cooling tower – could lead to energy savings of 29,510 kWh/yr

annually and cost savings of INR 2.73 lakhs per year.

4.4 Boilers

4.4.1 Boiler Performance Assessment

The main application of boilers in both GRTE and CRTE plants is the sterilization of

pouches post packaging in JBT Retort. Steam is generated using a boiler fired with high

speed diesel (HSD).

4.4.1.1 Thermal Efficiency and Loading Assessment

A boundary condition was set to assess the thermal performance of the boiler. A set of experimental trials were conducted, described as under, to assess efficiency under controlled conditions using the ‘Direct Method’ and ‘Indirect Method’ of efficiency assessment as outlined by the BEE Energy Audit Manual.

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) India specifies two methods for calculating boiler

efficiencies - the Direct Method and the Indirect Method. In Direct Method, the basic

formula for efficiency (output/input) is used where useful output (steam) is divided by

heat input to calculate the efficiency. In some cases, direct efficiency values are closer to

reality as compared to indirect efficiency on account of uncovered losses such as ON-OFF

losses. However, direct efficiency can only tell us about the magnitude of the overall loss,

i.e. no information about individual losses (and their magnitudes) is conveyed from direct

efficiency calculation. The Indirect Method on the other hand involves summing up all the

loss fractions in the steam generating process and subtracting them from 100(%). This

method accounts for losses due to dry flue gas, due to moisture, due to hydrogen in fuel,

etc. The tracing of losses is the key advantage of Indirect Method as it gives us more

clarity to figure out measures for improving boiler efficiencies. Also, Indirect efficiency is

measured at a particular time whereas Direct efficiency is measured over a period of time

(or using data collected over a period of time). There always exists some difference in the

values of direct and indirect efficiencies.

✓ Batches of fuel were prepared for firing the boiler over a fixed period of time ✓ Feed Water supply to the Feed Water Tank was stopped ✓ Feed Water tank dimensions was noted ✓ Feed Water temperature was recorded ✓ Outer dimensions were measured ✓ Drop in the level of diesel in the fuel tank was measured to get the total fuel consumed

during the trial ✓ Water level drop, after consumption of fuel stock, was measured ✓ % of CO2 in the exhaust gas after economizer was measured


The performance parameters measured during the trials have been presented below. The relevant equations used to determine Boiler efficiency were:

For direct efficiency method:

Heat Input (kCal) = GCV of Fuel (kCal/kg) × Fuel Mass (kg)

Heat Output (kCal) = Mass of Steam (kg) × (𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚− 𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)

Efficiency (%) = Steam Flow Rate (kg/hr) × (𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 − 𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)

𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 (𝑘𝑔ℎ𝑟

)× GCV of Fuel (kCal/kg)

For indirect efficiency method:

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑(𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙) =

[(11.6 ∗ 𝐶) + {34.8 ∗ (𝐻2 −𝑂28 )} + (4.35 ∗ 𝑆)]

100

Where, C= Carbon percentage in the fuel (%)

H2= Hydrogen percentage in the fuel (%)

O2= Oxygen percentage in the fuel (%)

S= Sulphur percentage in the fuel (%)

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑂2(%) =𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛

𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑒𝑛 + 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 + 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑢𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑢𝑟

% 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = 7900 ∗[(𝐶𝑂2%)𝑡 − (𝐶𝑂2%)𝑎]

(𝐶𝑂2%)𝑎 ∗ [100 − (𝐶𝑂2)𝑡]

Where, (CO2%)t= Theoretical CO2%

(CO2%)a= Measured CO2% by flue gas analyzer

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 (𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙)

= [1 + (% 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑)] ∗ 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 (𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙)

= 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 (𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑆𝑂2 + 𝑁2 + 𝑂2) + 𝑁2 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑖𝑟

𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝑚 ∗ 𝐶𝑃 ∗𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎

𝐺𝐶𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100

Where,

m= Mass of dry flue gas (kg/kg of fuel)

Cp= Specific heat of the flue gas in kCal/kg

Tf= Flue gas temperature in ᵒC


Ta= Ambient air temperature in ᵒC

𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (%)

= 9 ∗ 𝐻2 ∗{584 + 𝐶𝑝 ∗ (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎)}

𝐺𝐶𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100

Where,

H2 = kg of hydrogen present in the fuel on 1 kg basis

Cp= Specific heat of superheated steam in kCal/kg ᵒC



584 = Latent heat of corresponding to partial pressure of water vapour in kCal/kg

𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (%) = 𝑀 ∗{584 + 𝐶𝑝 ∗ (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎)}

𝐺𝐶𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100

Where,

M = kg of moisture in fuel on 1 kg basis




584 = Latent heat of corresponding to partial pressure of water vapour in kCal/kg

𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝐴𝐴𝑆 ∗ ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎

𝐺𝐶𝑉𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100

Where,

M= Actual mass of air supplied per kg of fuel

Humidity factor = kg of water per kg of dry air




Table 32 Boiler Efficiency Trials - Performance Parameters

Plant GRTE CRTE

Make Elite Engineers Elite Engineers

Type Non-IBR Non-IBR

Capacity (TPH) 1.5 1.0

Fuel Used High Speed Diesel High Speed Diesel

Avg. Fuel Consumption (kg/hr) 47.9 24.6

Quantity of Steam Generated (TPH) 0.819 0.403

Steam Pressure (kg/cm²) 8.5 11.0

Steam Temperature (°C) 173.0 184.0

Enthalpy of Generated Steam (kCal/kg) 662 664

Feed Water Temperature (°C) 30.0 30.0

Enthalpy of Feed Water (kCal/kg) 30.0 30.0

Total Heat Input (kCal/hr) 5,67,028 2,90,818

Total Heat Output (kCal/hr) 5,17,204 2,55,262


Evaporation Ratio 17.1 16.4

Loading 59.1% 43.3%

System Efficiency by Direct Method (%) 91.2% 87.8%

System Efficiency by Indirect Method (%) 85.7% 85.3%

It has to be noted that while the rated capacities of the GRTE Boiler and the CRTE Boiler are 1.5 TPH and 1 TPH respectively (at 1000C Feed Water Temperature), the effective rated capacities (for purposes of determining the operational loading rate in terms of %) were expected to be lower since the Return Feed Water temperatures were measured to be approximately 540C & 580C. These ‘de-rated’ capacities were calculated to be approximately 1.39 TPH and 0.93 TPH respectively. The % loading for each boiler was calculated based on these values.

The results of the test yield an efficiency of 85.7%10 at 59.1% loading for GRTE and 85.3% efficiency at 43.3% loading for CRTE. A difference between the efficiencies calculated by the two methods discussed earlier was observed, this could be due to human errors in physical measurement of the volume of the tank for calculating fuel consumption.

The most vital outcome of the Boiler Efficiency trials was that the measured efficiency was not much lower than anticipated relative to the average industry benchmarks. Figure 20 below indicates the expected Boiler Efficiency as a function of Heat Load %11. As expected, the plot indicates an increasing Dynamic Efficiency of the Boiler for higher Heat Load conditions. For the Heat Load conditions simulated during the trials (~43% and ~60% for CRTE and GRTE respectively), the benchmark efficiency curve below indicates a minimum expected Dynamic Efficiency of approximately 80% for the boiler at CRTE and 82% for the boiler at GRTE. This is approximately 5% and 4% lower than the measured efficiencies of 85% and 86% for the boilers at CRTE and GRTE respectively. The economizer is a heat recovery device which heats the feed water using heat available from waste gases, this lowers the fuel requirement in combustion. Economizer also helps in removal of dissolved gases by preheating of water and thus minimizes tendency of corrosion and pitting. These factors improve the efficiencies of a boiler system with an economizer. The Boiler Curve shown in Figure 20 does not account for the economizer. This explains the calculated efficiencies being higher as assessment was carried out with the economizer.

Figure 20 Benchmark Boiler Dynamic Efficiency % vs. Heat Load % Curve

10 Efficiency with indirect method is more accurate than the direct method. 11 Source: http://www.raypak.com/support/tech_corner/modulation


4.4.1.2 Energy and Efficiency Loss Assessment

The ‘Indirect method’ of assessment was used to ascertain relative contributions of various

sources of efficiency losses to the overall efficiency loss witnessed during the trials described

earlier. The ‘Indirect Method’ requires laboratory analysis of fuel to determine chemical

composition of the fuel and analysis of flue gas using a Flue Gas Analyzer. The lack of laboratory

reports of fuel analysis required that the standard composition of High Speed Diesel was

assumed12 for calculation purposes. The results of the analysis have been shared below.

Table 33 High Speed Diesel - Fuel Analysis Results

Sr. No Characteristics Values

1 Carbon 83.8%

2 Hydrogen 12.1%

3 Oxygen 0.60%

4 Sulphur 3.50%

5 Density in kg/ltr 0.83

6 GCV in kCal/kg 11,840

Field measurements of operational parameters relevant to the ‘Indirect Method’ have been

presented in the table below.

Table 34 Boiler Operation Parameters for ‘Indirect Method’

Parameter GRTE CRTE

% of Excess Air 21.4% 30.6%

Ambient DBT (K) 301 301

Actual CO2 in flue gas 11.9% 10.9%

Average Flue Gas Temp. (°C) 228 225

Specific Heat of Flue Gas (kCal/kg °C) 0.24 0.24

Specific Heat of Super Sat. Steam (kCal/kg °C) 0.43 0.43

12 Reference: Applied industrial Energy and Environment. Management by Z.K. Morvay, D.D. Gvozdenace


The loss due to moisture in air is minimal and the heat losses due to radiation and convection have been assumed to be 1%. These loss assessments were compared to the expected range of losses calculated from rated CO2% (range 13.5% -14%) and Flue gas temperature range (225ᵒC-250ᵒC)13.

Theoretical losses estimated from rated flue gas temperature and CO2% are presented below.

Table 35 Scenarios for boiler performance estimation

Sr. No. Scenarios14 Details

1 Scenario -I Flue Gas Temp. 225ᵒC and CO2 13.5%

2 Scenario - II Flue Gas Temp. 250ᵒC and CO2 13.5%

3 Scenario - III Flue Gas Temp. 225ᵒC and CO2 14%

4 Scenario - IV Flue Gas Temp. 250ᵒC and CO2 14%

5 Measured Flue Gas Temp. 228ᵒC and CO2 11.9% (On-site measured - GRTE)

6 Measured Flue Gas Temp. 225ᵒC and CO2 10.95% (On-site measured - CRTE)

Table 36 Boiler Losses for different scenarios - GRTE GRTE -01 Boiler Unit I

Details Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV Measured

Avg. Flue Gas Temp. (Deg. C) 225 250 225 250 228

Co2 (%) in Flue Gas 13.5% 13.5% 14.0% 14.0% 11.9%

% of Excess Air Supplied 9.5% 9.5% 6.3% 6.3% 21.4%

Actual Mass of Excess Air (kg of Air/ kg of Fuel)

15.39 15.39 14.95 14.95 17.07

Mass of Dry Flue Gas (kg / kg of Fuel)

15.30 15.30 14.86 14.86 16.98

Heat loss in Dry Flue Gas (%) 6.1% 6.9% 5.9% 6.7% 6.9%

Heat loss Due to Evaporation of Water due to Hydrogen in Fuel (%)

6.1% 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2%

Heat loss due to Moisture in Fuel (%)

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Heat loss due to Moisture in Air (%)

0.22% 0.25% 0.21% 0.24% 0.25%

Radiation loss & Convection loss

1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

Table 37 Boiler losses for different scenarios - CRTE CRTE -01 Boiler Unit II

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV Measured

Avg. Flue Gas Temp. (Deg. C) 225 250 225 250 225

13 CO2% and flue gas temperature ranges were received from Elite Engineers (Boiler Manufacturer) (http://www.elitethermal.net/) 14 Scenarios 1-4 were assumed same for the both the boiler GRTE and CRTE based on the details received from the boiler manufacturer.


Co2 (%) in Flue Gas 13.50% 13.50% 14.00% 14.00% 10.9%

% of Excess Air Supplied 9.5% 9.5% 6.3% 6.3% 30.6%

Actual Mass of Excess Air (kg of Air/ kg of Fuel)

15.39 15.39 14.95 14.95 18.36

Mass of Dry Flue Gas (kg / kg of Fuel)

15.30 15.30 14.86 14.86 18.27

Heat loss in Dry Flue Gas (%) 6.1% 6.9% 5.9% 6.7% 7.3%

Heat loss Due to Evaporation of Water due to Hydrogen in Fuel (%)

6.1% 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 6.1%

Heat loss due to Moisture in Fuel (%)

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Heat loss due to Moisture in Air (%)

0.22% 0.25% 0.21% 0.24% 0.26%

Radiation loss & Convection loss

1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

The resultant losses calculated for each type of energy loss from the above operational data is presented below. It has to be noted that in the absence of an uncertainty analysis, a 10% disparity has been allowed for between measured and average acceptable losses.

Table 38 Examination of losses in GRTE Boiler

Sr. No.

Details of Losses Average acceptable loss

Measured loss Remark

1 Heat loss in dry flue gas (%) 6.39% 6.90% Acceptable

2 Heat loss due to evaporation of water due to H2 in fuel (%) 6.20% 6.20% Acceptable

3 Heat loss due to moisture in fuel (%) 0.00% 0.00% Acceptable

4 Heat loss due to moisture in Air (%) 0.23% 0.25% Acceptable

Table 39 Examination of losses in CRTE Boiler

Sr. No.

Details of Losses Average acceptable loss

Measured loss

Status

1 Heat loss in dry flue gas (%) 6.39% 6.10% Acceptable

2 Heat loss due to evaporation of water due to H2 in fuel (%) 6.20% 7.30% Not Acceptable

3 Heat loss due to moisture in fuel (%) 0.00% 0.00% Acceptable

4 Heat loss due to moisture in Air (%) 0.23% 0.26% Not Acceptable

It is evident from the above energy loss assessment that the heat losses due to dry flue gases

contribute around 6.90% and 6.10% to the total losses in the GRTE and CRTE boilers

respectively. Evaporation of H2 (Hydrogen) in the fuel causes around 6.20% and 7.30% heat loss

from the boilers at GRTE and CRTE respectively.

4.4.2 Boiler & Steam System Recommendation and Energy Conservation

Opportunities

4.4.2.1 Thermal Efficiency Enhancement

The implications of thermal efficiency of boilers on energy and cost were computed and have been presented in


Table 40 below. There is scope for energy savings from boiler energy efficiency up-gradation through equipment refurbishment, maintenance or overhaul. Maintenance measures specified by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) can be found in the Appendix. As per details received from the manufacturer15, the rated thermal efficiency of the boiler is 93% (with Heat Recovery Unit). The potential for cost savings by enhancing boiler efficiency from approximately 85.5 % to 93 % have been estimated to be INR 1.98 Lakhs/year and INR 1.83 Lakhs/year for GRTE and CRTE Boiler respectively, along with an energy intensity reduction of 149.7 GJ/year and 138.8 GJ/year respectively.

Table 40 Boiler Efficiency Enhancement Savings Estimate

Parameter GRTE CRTE

Boiler Efficiency (%) 85.7% 85.3%

Revised Boiler Efficiency 93.0% 93.0%


Avg. Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.83 3.99

Revised Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.53 3.66

Annual Fuel Energy Savings (%) 7.8% 8.3%

Total Heat Input - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (kCal/year) 45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431

Revised Heat Input (kCal/year) - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation

42,22,05,615 36,73,99,253

Total Fuel Cost - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (INR/year) 25,31,612 22,14,256

Revised Total Fuel Cost for Steam Generation - (INR/year) 23,33,944 20,30,975

Annual Fuel Savings (Ltrs/year) 3,655 3,389

Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 1,97,688 1,83,281


4.4.2.2 Fuel Saving Device - FLUX Maxiox

The FLUX Maxiox is a magnetic device which generates a magnetic field that is rendered exactly perpendicular to the fuel flowing through the fuel line on which it is installed. This magnetic field is scientifically designed to impart certain physical changes in the fuel thereby causing the fuel to burn more efficiently.

In simplistic terms, the FLUX Maxiox functions in two distinct ways:

1) The magnetic field of the device interacts with the hydrocarbon fuel to make oxygen react better with the fuel and thus renders the burning of the fuel more efficient.

2) The magnetic field physically changes the hydrogen part of the fuel into a higher energized isomer which gives more energy output for the same amount of fuel burnt, thereby giving considerable savings in the fuel consumed.

By installing the FLUX Maxiox in existing boiler systems (GRTE and CRTE), approximately 4,388 liters/year of high speed diesel can be saved which leads to annual savings of 2,37,294 INR. The savings are based on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for GRTE and CRTE Boiler system. The annual savings analysis by installing the FLUX Maxiox in existing boiler system has been presented in the table below.

15 Elite Thermal Engineers Pvt. Ltd., http://www.elitethermal.net/steam-boilers.html#ibr-steam-boiler


Table 41 Saving estimates through fuel saving device- FLUX Maxiox

Parameter GRTE CRTE

Fuel Saving Device FLUX Maxiox FLUX Maxiox


Avg. Fuel Consumption (ltrs/year) 46,810 40,942

Revised Diesel Consumption (ltrs/year) 44,470 38,895



Fuel Savings 5% 5%



43,50,65,206 38,05,26,709



Annual Fuel Savings (Ltrs/year) 2,341 2,047


Capital Cost of Flux Maxiox 1,20,000 1,20,000

Payback Period (years) 1.0 1.1


4.4.2.3 Alternate Fuel (Bio-diesel)

Alternate fuel Bio-diesel can be used instead of high speed diesel. Using bio-diesel (GRTE and CRTE) instead of high speed diesel can lead to annual savings of INR 15,94,114. The savings are based on the difference in fuel cost. The annual savings analysis by using bio-diesel in the existing boiler systems has been given in the table below.

Table 42 Savings from use of bio-diesel

Parameter GRTE CRTE

GCV of HSD (kCal/kg) 11,840 11,840

GCV of Bio-diesel (kCal/kg) 10,100 10,100

Avg. Fuel Consumption (Ltrs/yr) 46,810 40,942

Revised Bio-diesel Consumption (ltr/yr) 50,947 44,561


Bio-Diesel Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 33 33



Fuel Savings -8.9% -8.8%



45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431





It has to be noted that negative fuel savings in the above table indicate that the physical

quantity of bio-diesel required for an equivalent average daily steam generation is that much

higher compared to HSD. This is because the Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of HSD is 11,840

kCal/kg while the GCV of Bio-diesel is 10,100 kCal/kg. The amount of bio-diesel required for

producing the same amount of heat energy is higher than HSD due to the inherent properties of

the respective fuels.

Some of the interventions proposed (including switching to bio-diesel or power-factor/ load-

management) have significant advantage of direct operational cost savings for the plant without

necessarily directly reducing energy consumption. These interventions can be seen as projects

that can be implemented immediately to establish a ‘green-fund’ from the costs savings that

result. This fund can subsequently spur internal investment in a capital improvement programs

for less financially rewarding (i.e. longer payback period etc.) but imperative environmental

technologies that warrant attention due to their immense sustainability benefits.

4.4.2.4 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD

KM+ instantly improves the quality of liquid fuel the moment it is mixed. It is non-toxic,

environmentally friendly and biodegradable. KM+ enables fuel to be dispersed to smaller fuel

droplets and speeds up the fuel burning process to completion before piston is in its upward

stroke. The key benefits of fast burning fuel are reduction in black smoke, toxic gases, wastage

of unburned fuel and reduction in greenhouse gas.

By adding fuel additives in the existing boiler combustion systems (GRTE and CRTE boiler systems), approximately 8,775 ltrs/year of high speed diesel can be saved which would lead to annual savings of 3,16,633 INR. The savings depend on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for GRTE and CRTE Boiler systems. The annual savings analysis by using fuel additives in existing boiler system has been done using the existing consumption pattern as a reference, details of the analysis have been shown in the table below.

Table 43 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD

Parameter GRTE CRTE



KM+ Cost (INR/ltr) 3,000 3,000

Avg. Fuel Consumption (ltrs/year) 46,810 40,942

Revised Diesel Consumption (ltrs/year) 42,129 36,848





Fuel Savings 10.0% 10.0%




41,21,67,038 36,04,98,988



Annual Fuel Savings (ltrs/year) 4,681 4,094


Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 192 168

4.4.2.5 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with Bio-diesel

The fuel additive KM+ is also compatible with bio-diesel. Use of bio-diesel with the fuel additive (in both GRTE and CRTE boilers) instead of high speed diesel would lead to an estimated annual savings of 16,58,585 INR. The savings are based on the differences in fuel cost. The annual savings analysis by using bio-diesel in existing boiler system along with the recommended fuel additive has been presented in the table below.

Table 44 Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with Bio-diesel

Parameter GRTE CRTE

HSD Fuel GCV (kCal/kg) 11,840 11,840

Bio-diesel GCV (kCal/kg) 10,100 10,100



Bio-Diesel Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 33 33

KM+ Cost (INR/ltr) 3,000 3,000



Avg. HSD Consumption (ltrs/year) for Avg. Daily Steam Generation

46,810 40,942

Avg. Bio-Diesel Consumption (ltrs/year) for Avg. Daily Steam Generation

47,126 41,218



Fuel Savings16 -0.7% -0.7%



42,36,16,122 37,05,12,848




Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 144 126

16 Negative values indicate higher quantity of recommended fuel required to fulfil the energy needs compared to High Speed Diesel.


Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Boiler System

• Thermal Efficiency Enhancement: Improvement of boiler efficiency to 93% would result

in fuel savings of 7.8% and 8.3% respectively for the GRTE and CRTE boilers, yielding cost

savings of INR 1.98 Lakhs/year and INR 1.83 Lakhs/year respectively.

• Fuel Saving Device (FLUX Maxiox): Installation of FLUX Maxiox would result in fuel

savings of 5% for each boiler system, with associated cost savings of INR 1.26 Lakhs/year

and INR 1.11 Lakhs/year for the GRTE and CRTE boilers respectively.

• Alternate Fuel Bio-Diesel: Switching to bio-diesel as the fuel for boilers would result in

higher fuel (bio-diesel) consumption compared to what would have been for HSD by

8.9% and 8.8% for GRTE and CRTE boilers but would yield cost savings of 8.50

Lakhs/year and INR 7.44 Lakhs/year respectively (Cost savings are higher due to the

lower cost of bio-diesel as compared to high speed diesel).

• Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with HSD: Adding the fuel additive with HSD would result in

fuel savings of 10% for each boiler system, leading to cost savings of INR 1.69 Lakhs/year

and INR 1.48 Lakhs/year for GRTE and CRTE boilers respectively.

• Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with Bio-Diesel: Switching to bio-diesel with addition of fuel

additives would result in higher fuel consumption by 0.7% for each boiler (compared to

use of HSD) but yield cost savings of INR 8.85 Lakhs/year and INR 7.74 Lakhs/year

respectively for GRTE and CRTE boilers.

4.5 Compressed Air System

4.5.1 GRTE and CRTE Compressed Air System Assessment

There are six compressors in all, four located in GRTE and two in CRTE with ratings and

specifications as mentioned below. All four compressors in GRTE plant have been installed on

the top floor of the plant and compressed air is drawn from them to the GRTE and RTC sections

of the plant. Both compressors in the CRTE plant have been installed on the ground floor. In the

GRTE section, the main application of compressed air is for retort machine operation and sealing

operation. In the RTC section, compressed air is used in packing related operations. During the

compressor audit, one of the compressors (RTC AC II) was not operational as per the demands of

the manufacturing process and has not been covered in the audit. The schematic diagram of

GRTE Compressors is as shown in Figure 21.

In the CRTE plant, only the higher capacity compressor (10 HP) is in regular operation and the

other one (7.5 HP) serves as a backup or is used only during high instantaneous demand. The

compressed air from these compressors is used in the Retort and for sealing of pouches. On

occasions when the Retort is not in operation, the 7.5 HP compressor is switched ON to making

it the main supply for the sealing process and the 10 HP compressor is idle.

Compressed Air System efficiency and performance was assessed through the Free Air Delivery

and Leakage Test (Pump-Up Method) process as prescribed by the BEE Energy Audit Manual.

The technical specifications, equipment nameplate (rating) details, as well as measured values

of compressor performance have been presented in Table 45 & Table 46. Multiple Power


Analysers were used to record power and time taken for loading and unloading cycles to fill the

compressor receiver with downstream air usage with all equipment across the plant stopped.

Figure 21 Schematic diagram of compressors - GRTE

Table 45 Compressor Rated Details

Air Compressor ID Make Model Max. Press. (Kg/cm²)

Rated Free Air Delivery (cfm)

Power (KW)

Storage Volume (m3)

GRTE AC III Atlas Copco GAE11FF 9.9 55.1 11 2

RTC AC IV-30 Atlas Copco GA 30+ AFF 7.4 202.9 30 2.4

RTC AC I-15 Atlas Copco GA-15 7.6 94.5 15 2.6

RTC AC II Atlas Copco GA 11 AEL 7.6 68.0 11 2

CRTE R Atlas Copco 9.8 N/A 7.5 4

Table 46 Field Measurement Data

Air Compressor ID

Initial Pressure P1 (kg/cm2)

Final Pressure after Filling P2 (kg/cm2)

Atm. Pressure P0 (kg/cm2)

Pump up time (min)

Power (KW)

GRTE AC III 1.5 8.6 0.9 11.9 10.8

RTC AC IV-30 1.4 8.2 0.9 3.52 31.25

AC-III

GA 11FF

AC-IV

GA 30+FF

AC-I

GA 15

AC-II

GA 11

JBT

Retort

Pouching

Section

Air

Receiver

Air

Receiver


RTC AC I-15 1.4 8.2 0.9 8.00 13.5

RTC AC II 1.4 8.2 0.9 N/A N/A

CRTE Retort 1.5 11.0 0.9 67.5 6.8

Based on the rated and measured data, the Isothermal Efficiency of the system as well as Free

Air Delivery was calculated using the equations presented below and the results are shown in

Table 47.

𝐼𝑠𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑘𝑊) = 𝑃1×𝑄𝑓× ln 𝑟

36.7

Where, P1 = Absolute Intake Pressure (kg/cm2), Qf = Free Air Delivered (m3/hr), and r = Pressure Ratio (P1/P2)

𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 (𝑄𝑓 ,𝑁𝑚3

𝑚𝑖𝑛) =

𝑃2 − 𝑃1

𝑃0×

𝑉

𝑇

Where, P2 = Final Pressure after Filling (absolute, kg/cm2), P1 = Initial Pressure after Bleeding (absolute, kg/cm2), P0 = Atmospheric Pressure (absolute, kg/cm2), V = Storage Volume of Receiver, After Cooler, and Piping (m3), and T = Time taken to reach Pressure P2 (mins)

𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑄𝑡𝑦. ( 𝑁𝑚3

𝑚𝑖𝑛) =

𝑇

𝑇 + 𝑡×𝑄

Where, T = Time on-load (mins.), t = Time un-load (mins.), and Q = Free Air Delivered (m3/min)

Table 47 Compressor Efficiency Analysis

Air Compressor ID

Pressure Ratio (P2/P1)

Free Air Delivery (m³/min)

Free Air Delivery (cfm)

Iso-thermal Power (KW)

Iso-thermal efficiency (%)

GRTE AC III 5.69 1.40 48.4 5.90 54.5%

RTC AC IV-30 5.81 5.80 188 21.6 69.0%

RTC AC I-15 5.81 2.50 89.1 10.3 76.1%

CRTE Retort 7.28 0.60 22.1 3.10 45.0%

Leakage test was performed for all three operational compressors at GRTE and it was observed

that there was no reduction in the pressure in the air receiver tank indicating that all

compressors were performing considerably well. None of the compressors had any notable air


leakage this is due to periodic maintenance done by the Gits maintenance team, which is

commendable.

From the results of the free air delivery (FAD) test, it was observed that the measured FAD of all

three compressors were lesser than the rated FAD. This is very likely to be due to the higher air

inlet temperature into the compressors. A higher than expected inlet air temperature adversely

impacts compressor operation and is a source of reduced system efficiency. It is generally

accepted that a 40C rise in inlet temperature increases energy consumption by 1% to achieve the

same an equivalent output17. Table 48 shows estimated increase in power consumption by the

compressors because of higher intake temperatures. Cooler air intake would allow more

efficient compression. The de-rated free air delivery of all three compressors have also been

given in the below table. Estimated Relative Free Air Delivery Percentage is the amount of free

air delivered at average air intake temperature compared to free air delivered at ideal air intake

temperature.

17 Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy, Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities, Chapter 3.3 Compressed Air System, Table 3.3.


Figure 22 Relative Free Air Delivery (%)

It can be seen from Figure 22 that there is a drop of 9% in the free air delivery with a rise of 28

degrees in the intake air temperature, with approximately 0.32% reduction in the free air

delivery per degree rise in the intake air temperature.

Table 48 De-Rating of Air Compressors

Air Compressor ID

Avg. Air Intake Temp. (°C)

Ideal Air Intake temp (°C)

Estimated Relative Free Air Delivery (%)

Estimated Increase in Power Consumption (%)

Free Air Delivery @ 32 °C (cfm)

GRTE AC III 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 52.1

RTC AC IV-30 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 192

RTC AC I-15 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 89.3

RTC AC II 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 64.3

CRTE Retort 33 15.5 94% 4.14% Data Unavailable

The pipe sizing for compressed air-flow was examined during the energy audit. Pipe sizing depends on the allowable velocity of compressed air in the pipeline. As per BEE, velocities between 6 to 10 m/s are usual and velocities in this range prevent excessive pressure drops while also allowing moisture to precipitate. The gas law dealing with the expansion of air, with pressure and temperature both varying simultaneously, is as given below:

102%

100%

98%

96%

94%

93%

91%

R² = 0.9976

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

102%

104%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Free

Air

Del

iver

y(%

)

Temperatures in Degree C

Relative Free Air Delivery at Diffrent Temperatures (%)

Relative Air Delivery (%) Expon. (Relative Air Delivery (%))


𝑃1 ∗𝑉1

𝑇1= 𝑃2 ∗

𝑉2

𝑇2

Where, P1, V1 and T1 are the original pressure, volume and temperature P2, V2 and T2 are the new pressure, volume and temperature

The compressor velocity assessment has been carried out based on the pipe size. It has been observed that RTC AC IV 30 and RTC AC I -15 have a velocity which overshoots the BEE specified acceptable velocity range (6-10 m/s), refer Table 49.

Table 49 Velocity Assessment Based on Piping Size

Compressor ID Dia of Pipe (NB) in inches

Quantity of compressed air flow (cfm)

Area of pipeline (m²)

Quantity of compressed air flow (m³/min)

quantity of air flow (m³/sec)

Measured velocity (m/s)

GRTE AC III 1 55.1 0.001 1.6 0.005 7.49

RTC AC IV-30 1.5 202.9 0.001 5.7 0.016 11.49

RTC AC I -15 1 94.5 0.001 2.7 0.008 12.58

RTC AC II 1 68.0 0.001 1.9 0.006 9.06

4.5.2 Energy Conservation Opportunity in Compressor System

4.5.2.1 Lowering the Air Intake Temperature

During the site visit, it was observed that the average temperature of the compressor room was

32 ᵒC which was higher than the ambient temperature. This is due to heat generation from the

compressed air system. By lowering the air intake temperature to ambient temperature

efficiency of the system can be increased. This can be achieved by insulation of the duct and

compressor room top. Reduction in the inlet air temperature by 4ᵒC would reduce the energy

consumption by 1% to achieve the same an equivalent output18.

Below table shows the energy savings through the lowering of air intake temperature at GRTE

plant. Lowering the air intake temperature to ambient air temperature, approximately 25,656

INR could be saved annually.

Table 50 Energy Savings by lowering the air intake temperature

Air Compressor ID

Compressor Room Temp. (ᵒC)

Revised Temperature (ᵒC)

Power Consump. (kW)

Revised Power Consumption (kW)

Power Saving (kW)

Energy Savings (kWh/yr)


Capital Cost of Insulation

GRTE AC III 32 28 10.8 10.6 0.20 712 6,131 3,318

RTC AC IV-30 32 28 31.3 30.8 0.45 1,628 14,025 2,986

18 Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy, Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities, Chapter 3.3 Compressed Air System, Table 3.3.


RTC AC I-15 32 28 13.5 13.3 0.17 638 5,500 3,318

Total 55.6 54.7 0.82 2,978 25,656 9,622

4.5.2.2 Lowering the Set Pressure

Based on the meticulous feedback solicited from field personnel operating the compressed air

system, it was gleaned that none of the usage locations connected to the compressed air system

across the GRTE/RTC plant need compressed air at a pressure greater than 6.5 bar. The typical

pressure drops for a 100 CFM compressor are presented in Table 51. With an adequate size of

compressed air piping according to recommended standards (approximately 65 mm to 70 mm

bore), pressure drop in the header is expected to be approximately 0.2 to 0.25 kg/cm2 and at the

farthest point in distribution would be approximately 0.25 kg/cm2With the 50mm bore pipe size,

the estimated final pressure drop at farthest point was estimated to be 0.65 to 0.75 Kg /cm2.

The pressure at the generation point i.e. compressor GRTE AC III in the GRTE unit is 7.6 Kg/cm2,

and the final pressure at the farthest point requires 6.5 kg/cm2. This indicates scope for lowering

set pressure at compressor level.

Table 51 Pressure drops and power losses for different pipe sizes

CFM= 100 55 203 95

Pipe Bore (mm)

Pressure drop (bar)/ 100 meters

Equivalent Power Losses (kW)







40 1.80 9.50 0.99 5.23 3.65 19.28 1.70 8.97

50 0.65 3.40 0.36 1.87 1.32 6.90 0.61 3.21

65 0.22 1.20 0.12 0.66 0.45 2.43 0.21 1.13

80 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.41 0.04 0.19

100 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.09

The consequent annual energy and cost savings for GRTE and CRTE air compressors are

presented in Table 52 below and indicate a potential for saving approximately 11,146 kWh/year

and an associated cost reduction of approximately INR 1,03,150 per year through this relatively

simple operational modification.

Table 52 Savings Summary by Reducing Delivery Pressure

Compressor ID

Revised Delivery Pressure (kg/cm2)

Revised Press. Ratio

Revised Iso-thermal Power (kW)

Power Reduction (%)

Power Reduction (kW)

Energy Saving (kWh/year)

Cost Saving (INR/year)

GRTE AC III 7.613 5.03 5.5 7.10% 0.4 1,526.9 14,130.8

RTC AC IV-30 7.213 5.10 21.7 7.38% 1.7 6,320.1 58,488.3

RTC AC I-15 7.213 5.10 9.5 7.38% 0.8 2,761.2 25,522.7

CRTE-R 10.013 6.62 2.9 4.80% 0.1 537.9 4,978.1

Total 11,146 1,03,150


The above recommendation would give best results when the leakage in compressors is

restricted to a minimum.

4.5.2.3 Waste Heat Recovery

Figure 23 shows that out of the total electricity consumed by any compressor, only 15% leads to generation of compressed air and the rest of the energy is lost in the form of mainly two components – one is loss of air due to leakages, artificial demand and inappropriate uses and the other is due to heat of compression. A good amount of this heat can be recovered for use in suitable operations. Two commonly known and possible utilities are heating air and heating water using the heat energy available from compressor operation, without affecting the compressor performance in any way. Energy recovery would not only lower the plant’s overall energy consumption but also reduce its environmental impact. The below equation gives the estimated waste heat which can be available for the heat recovery application.

𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 (𝐵𝑇𝑈

𝑦𝑟)

= 0.80 ∗ 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝐵𝐻𝑃 ∗ 2545 (𝐵𝑇𝑈

𝑏ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑟)

∗ 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

Where,

0.8 = Recoverable heat as a percentage of the unit’s output 2545 = Conversion factor

Table 53 Waste Heat available for recovery

Compressor ID

Rated Power (kW)

Power (BHP)

Waste Heat Available (BTU/hr)

Waste Heat Available (kCal/hr)

Power Savings (kW)

GRTE AC III 11 15 30,033 7,573 8.8

RTC AC IV-30 30 40 81,908 20,654 24.0

RTC AC I-15 15 20 40,954 10,327 12.0

RTC AC II 11 15 30,033 7,573 8.8

Total 1,82,928 46,127 53.6

Figure 23 Heat Loss Diagram for Compressor


(Image Source: Heat Recovery and Compressed Air Systems by Frank Moskowitz for the Compressed Air

Challenge ®)

An appreciable utilization of the waste heat from compressors by Gits was the drying of laundry in the area above the compressors, refer Figure 24 The hot air emanating from the compressors was allowed to rise in an enclosed section right above the cabinet housing all the compressors and the heat energy was used to dry the laundry from the premises of the plant, thereby reducing the operational load on the dryers of the washing machines. Out of the available 53.6 kW for recovery, approximately 17.6 kW worth of power is being utilized for drying laundry at the plant. This number (17.6 kW) has been arrived at by accounting for the amount of dryer load19 which has been substituted by this heat.

Figure 24 Drying of laundry using waste heat from compressors

Table 54 Estimated drying (washing machine) energy saved

Rated power of dryers (kW)

Estimated Energy Consumption20 (kWh/yr)

Estimated Cost Savings (INR/yr)

17.6 4,818 41,506

Justified Use of Compressed Air

Compressed air is a costly commodity as is evident from results of Leakage Test and FAD Test. The exhaustive site audit performed has yielded vital observations related to potential for more prudent use of this valuable resource. It has been observed compressed air is routinely employed for cleaning of clothes and other floor areas. An immediate low hanging fruit opportunity available to the operational team for energy reduction is to explore the possibility of using other equivalent equipment in clean room areas for air washing and any other such

19 Total dryer load as per specifications of the equipment collected during site visit 20 Based on assumptions: (i) 2 dryers working, (ii) operational hours = 1.5 hours every alternate day


areas so that such points may be cut off from compressed air line. These could be served by dedicated blowers instead which require much less energy to perform an identical function.

Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Compressed Air Systems

• Lowering the air intake temperature (GRTE/RTC): Reducing the air intake temperature

in the GRTE plant to 28 degree Celsius (against the measured temperature of 32 degree

Celsius) would result in energy savings of 2,978 kWh/yr and an associated cost saving of

INR 25,656 per year. The estimated payback period would be a meagre 0.4 years.

• Lowering the Set Pressure of Air Compressor (GRTE/RTC): Reducing delivery pressure

of compressors in GRTE plant by 1kg/cm² results in 10,608 kWh/year energy savings and

an associated cost reduction of approximately INR 98,172 per year.

• Lowering the Set Pressure of Air Compressor (CRTE): Reducing delivery pressure of

compressors in CRTE plant by 1kg/cm² results in 537.9 kWh/year energy savings and an

associated cost reduction of approximately INR 4,978 per year.

• Waste Heat Recovery – 46,127 kCal/hr worth of waste heat energy is available from

compressors at GRTE which could lead to power savings equivalent to 53.6 kW.

4.6 Miscellaneous

4.6.1 IDEC at Dryer Section (GRTE Plant) for Comfort Cooling

The high equipment load in the dryer section along with the exposure of freshly dried material

at a temperature of close to 80⁰C to the room21 results in high room temperatures affecting the

comfort of working occupants during the day. To address this heat load, Indirect Direct

Evaporative Coolers are recommended to be employed in this section.

Desirable and expected outcomes from use of IDEC systems here will be in terms of improved

productivity and subsequently, reduction in time lost due to issues affecting productivity. The

reported frequency of health issues can also be expected to drop. Key environmental factors

affecting productivity include thermal conditions, indoor air quality, acoustics and lighting and

Indirect Direct Evaporative Coolers will take care of the thermal conditions and the indoor air

quality, relieving any form of thermal stress experienced by the occupants during peak

operational hours, especially in the summer months.

Based on cBalance’s visit to the plant with HMX personnel, the best arrangement was

understood to be spot cooling over the pathways to achieve desired conditions without

disturbing the processing environment. Space cooling would mean higher volume of airflow into

the room which could lead to diffusion of powdered particles. Spot cooling was identified as the

solution. As per the preliminary proposal, there will be 7 spots of 570 CFM along the pathway

and air will be drawn from a 4000 CFM outdoor unit through Galvanized Iron (GI) ducting. Table

55 shows the estimations for cooling requirement and the recommended system specifications.

21 The material removed from the driers post drying operation is around 80⁰C and is allowed to cool to upto 60-65⁰C before it is used in the next process.


through GI ducting. Table 55 shows the estimations for cooling requirement and the

recommended system specifications.

Table 55 Indirect Direct Evaporative Cooler in Dryer Section

Parameter Value Units

Location Hadapsar, Pune

Cooled Air Requirement 4,000 CFM

Air throw per spot 570 CFM

No of Spots 7 Nos.

Equipment Cost 1,50,000 INR

Installation Cost 3,06,850 INR

From further discussions with the Gits team, allowance for regular (at least weekly) cleaning of

the ducts to prevent undesirable accumulation of dust and other particulate matter present in

the process environment was understood to be a key consideration in selection of the material

and shape of the ducts for circulating the cooled air. Rectangular ducts have been ruled out

since they do not meet this requirement and the ducting team is currently exploring alternatives

like fabric ducting, round GI or Stainless Steel (SS) ducts and powder coating on ducts to account

for the constraints while satisfying the comfort needs. High-efficiency particulate arrestance

(HEPA) filters are also being considered to meet the air quality standards for Food & Beverage

industries based on inputs from the Gits team.

4.6.2 Solar PV at GRTE Plant

Energy generation of 15kWp by use of solar photovoltaics has been proposed by Green Power,

Pune and details of the proposed system can be found in Table below.

Table 56 Solar PV at GRTE Plant

System Capacity (kWp)

Shadow free area (Sq. ft.)

Generation per day (kWh/day)

Total Units generated annually (kWh/yr)

Energy Cost (INR/kWh)


Capital Cost (INR)

Inflation adjusted payback period22 (yrs)

15 2000 75 22,500 8.61 1,93,725 14,75,000 6.49

It can be seen that for the roof-top area of 2000 sq. ft., a 15 kWp system is expected to generate

75 units of electricity per day assuming an average of 5 sunny hours per day. The annual energy

generation of 22,500 kWh will reduce the electrical load on the plant by 2% and savings of INR

1.93 lakhs are expected with a payback period of 6.49 years. The payback period is reasonable

considering that there would be no recurring costs over this installation.

4.6.3 Atmospheric Vacuum Dryer

Substances that contain water can be dried in a number of ways. Most drying processes today use heated air to remove the moisture from the substances. Heating the air requires energy. This is provided mostly by electricity, steam or hot water. Such heat processes are costly, may cause damage to heat sensitive materials and remove many other volatile substances that constitute

22 Annual escalation of tariff assumed to be 5.81% (based on INR 0.50 rise per year)


the fragrance, flavor and the taste of the substance, effectively changing the properties of the substance. A more efficient way of extracting water is by using vacuum. While this won’t achieve any "Cooking", it will still remove the volatiles.

AtVac drying, also called "Atmospheric Vacuum Drying", is an innovative process that works at room temperature and pressure. The process removes only the water from the substance while leaving the volatile and essential substances intact. The machine proposed by Panasia Engineers consumes 1 KW to provides a combined drying effect equal to 10 KW. The "Vacuum" in the system is formed by removing most of the water vapor from the air, thus creating a "Vapour Vacuum" in the drying chamber, at atmospheric pressure. The internal vapor pressure of the substance causes the internal moisture to flow out easily.

Features: 1. The machine works in two stages:

• The first stage removes water until the moisture level is less than 6 grams per kilogram of dry air.

• The second stage further extracts water to ensure that the leaving air has a moisture level of less than 2 grams per kilogram.

2. After the second stage is completed, the air is almost free of moisture, and therefore vapor vacuum is achieved.

3. Only the moisture is removed, while the substance’s fragrance and taste remains the same after drying.

4. The moist air of the room is recycled and the condensed water, being very pure, can be reused.

5. The machine recycles the heat and reuses it, effectively reducing the overall energy consumption.

Adopting this innovative technology post evaluation of suitable applications at Gits does not only promise savings in terms of energy and costs but it would also mean a positive disruption from the energy intensive mainstream technologies used in the drying industry. A sample of the maida used in some products was tested on this machine. The results were considered unsatisfactory because the desired de-moisturization was not achieved within the test period. Based on manufacturer’s claims, the machine is expected to save 40% of energy compared to a conventional (atmospheric) tray drying system (assuming that the desired results are being achieved). Preliminary analysis indicates that this is equivalent to energy cost savings of INR 283 per 3-hour batch per dryer23.The machine still being in the development phase however, the designers are willing to customize it to provide the requisite drying based on further research aided by inputs from the Gits team. Based on discussions with the Gits team, it has been decided that feasibilities of allied research with prominent technological research institution ICT (Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai) will be mutually decided upon.

23 Assumed for savings estimation: Dryer load = 25.5 kW, Energy charge = INR 9.25 per kWh, batch duration = 3 hours


5 Conclusion The total current annual electrical energy consumption of the GRTE Plant of Gits Food Pvt. Ltd. is

approximately 11.7 Lakh kWh/yr (0.98 Lakh kWh/month) and that of CRTE is 2.11 Lakh kWh/yr

(0.176 lakh kWh/month). In addition to electricity, the GRTE Plant consumes 78.6 thousand

liters per year of High Speed Diesel for thermal applications and for power generation. Similarly,

the CRTE plant consumes 42.8 thousand liters per year for thermal energy and for power

generation. The average energy cost being paid by the facility is INR 15.6 Lakhs per month and

INR 1.88 Crores per year. GRTE contributes 76.5% to the total annual energy bill and CRTE

accounts for 23.5% of the total annual energy cost.

The overall benefits of proceeding with implementation of the various interventions proposed in

the earlier sections are substantial; Gits has the opportunity to save 0.72 Lakh kWh/yr and

15,911 ltrs/yr of High Speed Diesel which will together cut down its overall energy cost by

14.8%. The consolidated environmental, cost and energy conservation impacts of all proposed

alternatives has been presented in Table 57 below.

Table 57 Overall Conservation Summary from recommended measures

Parameter Value Units

Capital Cost 3.47 Lakh INR

Energy Conservation - Electrical 72,205 kWh/yr

Energy Conservation – Liquid Fuel (HSD) 15,911 Ltr/year

GHG Mitigation 140 MT CO2e/yr

Cost Savings 27.8 Lakh INR/yr

Payback Period 0.13 yrs

% Energy Conservation - Electrical 5.22% % kWh/yr

% Energy Conservation - Thermal 13.1% % ltrs of fuel/yr

% Energy Cost Conservation 14.8% % INR/yr

CONTEXT

Trees 559 trees/yr

Homes 60 homes/yr

Cars 155 cars/yr

The overarching conclusion from the Energy Audit process was that Gits can achieve the

following positive impacts on the environment and its operational costs:

• Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 140 metric tonnes of CO2 per year (equivalent

to planting approximately 559 trees every year).

• Conserve 0.72 lakh units of electricity every year (enough to power 60 average Indian

homes per year).

• Reduce its operational cost by INR 27.8 Lakhs every year.

• The capital cost for implementing all the proposed projects is approximately INR 3.47

Lakh (All costs are only equipment cost).

• The payback period for these investments is less than a year.


It must be noted that the actual savings may vary in the range ± 20% of the indicated values

depending upon site conditions and other unforeseen variables.

The recommended priority list for implementation of all energy related interventions proposed

follows the order of the relative Marginal Abatement Cost Curve specifically developed for the

facility as the culminating outcome of the Energy Audit.

The MAC Curves for the facility have been presented below in Figure 25.

Figure 25 MAC Curve for Energy Conservation Opportunities at Gits Food

-60,000

-50,000

-40,000

-30,000

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

MA

C:

INR

/tC

O2

Thousand tonnes of carbon saved/year

A B C D E

F G H I J

K L M N O

P Q R S T

U V W X Reduction target


Table 58 Energy Efficiency Roadmap Projects & Marginal Abatement Costs Summary

Pr. ID System Project Description Capital Cost (INR)

Annual Savings (INR) Payback Period (yrs)

Annual average CO2

savings (MT CO2e/yr)

A Boiler System CRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Bio Diesel Fuel

80,209 7,73,838 0.10 8.90

B Boiler System GRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Bio Diesel Fuel

91,705 8,84,747 0.10 10.2

C Boiler System GRTE Boiler Efficiency Improvement 0 1,97,668 0.00 9.70

D Boiler System CRTE Boiler Efficiency Improvement 0 1,83,281 0.00 9.00

E Boiler System GRTE Boiler Installation of Flux Maxiox 1,20,000 1,26,581 0.90 6.20

F Boiler System CRTE Boiler Installation of Flux Maxiox 1,20,000 1,10,713 1.10 5.40

G Boiler System GRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Existing Fuel 73,696 1,47,730 0.50 10.9

H DG Set DG Set GRTE Use of Fuel Additives (KM+) 18,111 36,305 0.50 2.70

I DG Set DG Set CRTE Use of Fuel Additives (KM+) 3,514 7,044 0.50 0.50

J Boiler System GRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Existing Fuel 84,259 1,68,903 0.50 12.5

K GRTE Cooling Tower Shutting down the cooling tower 0 2,73,096 0.00 39.9

L Lighting Improve ILER by Reducing RI 0.1 2,69,113 0.00 39.3

M Compressed Air System

RTC AC IV 30 - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 53,776 0.00 7.90

N Compressed Air System

RTC AC I 15 - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 25,553 0.00 3.70

O Compressed Air System

GRTE AC III - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 14,131 0.00 2.10

P Compressed Air System

CRTE (Retort) - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 4,978 0.00 0.70

Q Lighting Replace 18W CFL with 7W LED 10,740 23,447 0.50 3.40

R Compressed Air System

RTC AC IV 30 - Lowering the air intake temperature 2,986 14,025 0.20 2.20

S Compressed Air System

GRTE AC III - Lowering the air intake temperature 3,318 6,132 0.50 1.00


T Compressed Air System

RTC AC I 15 - Lowering the air intake temperature 3,318.0 5,500 0.60 0.90

U DG Set DG Set GRTE - Use of Flux Maxiox (Fuel Saving Device)

1,44,000 27,208 5.30 1.30

V Lighting Replace 28W T5 with 18W LED 3,00,385 66,522 4.50 9.70

W Solar Rooftop System Installation

15kW Solar Panel Installation 14,75,000 1,93,832 6.50 30.4

X DG Set DG Set CRTE - Use of Flux Maxiox (Fuel Saving Device)

72,000 5,279 13.6 0.30

Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report – April 2017

For effective implementation of project, it is opined that a PMC (Project Management

Consultant) may be appointed by the management. The PMC can prepare blueprints, draft

specifications and BOQs, execute floating of enquiries, and conduct techno-commercial

negotiations with approved vendors. The PMC will also oversee project implementation and

may be entrusted with any relevant energy saving certification.


6 Appendix

Appendix I-A

Energy Bill Summary – GRTE

Month Metered kWh

Max. Demand [kVA]

Recorded PF

Billed Demand Charges (INR.)

Energy Charges (INR.)

Excess. Demand (kVA)

Excess Demand Charges (INR.)

PF Incentive (INR.)

Total Payable Amount (INR)

Jul-16 1,13,727 699 1.000 1,06,480 7,63,108 0 0 -64,702 9,55,861

Jun-16 87,748 550 1.000 1,04,280 5,88,789 0 0 -53,015 7,82,703

May-16 1,13,153 550 1.000 1,04,720 7,59,257 0 0 -68,790 10,15,551

Apr-16 1,05,329 550 1.000 1,00,980 7,06,758 0 0 -62,877 9,28,423

Mar-16 1,00,505 550 1.000 1,02,740 6,74,389 0 0 -58,145 8,58,833

Feb-16 91,450 550 0.998 99,880 6,13,630 0 0 -53,175 7,85,378

Jan-16 76,920 550 0.999 93,280 5,16,133 0 0 -45,241 6,68,124

Dec-15 99,962 550 0.999 1,02,300 6,70,745 0 0 -60,738 8,96,680

Nov-15 64,857 550 0.995 1,02,080 4,35,190 0 0 -41,758 6,16,126

Oct-15 1,36,572 524 1.000 1,21,000 9,16,398 0 0 -81,809 12,07,921

Sep-15 1,25,134 502 1.000 1,15,280 8,39,649 0 0 -72,651 10,73,056

Aug-15 Data unavailable for August 2015

Jul-15 1,02,984 1,02,960 6,91,023 0 0 -59,959 8,84,499

Jun-15 70,702 72,200 4,74,410 0 0 -41,302 6,09,252

May-15 99,855 479 1.000 79,420 6,32,082 0 0 -45,957 6,79,622

Apr-15 90,520 479 1.000 86,450 5,72,992 5 1,425 -53,807 7,93,593

Mar-15 95,222 479 1.000 84,360 6,02,755 0 0 -56,099 8,27,458

Feb-15 95,422 479 1.000 79,230 6,56,504 0 0 -51,383 7,56,353

Jan-15 87,109 479 1.000 73,910 6,81,192 0 0 -54,300 7,98,196

Average 97,621 1.000 96,197 6,55,278 -56,984 8,40,979

Total 17,57,171 17,31,550 1,17,95,004 -10,25,708 1,51,37,627

Appendix I-B

Energy Bill Summary - CRTE

Month Metered kWh

Max. Demand (kVA)

Recorded PF

Billed Demand Charges (INR.)

Energy Charges (INR.)

Excess. Demand (kVA)

Excess Demand Charges (INR.)

PF Incentive (INR.)

Total Payable Amount (INR)

Aug-16 9,797 134 0.954 13,050 68,383 34 7,650 - 1,04,175

Jul-16 20,692 134 0.963 13,050 1,44,430 34 7,650 -1,742 2,03,413

Jun-16 17,895 134 0.954 13,050 1,24,907 34 7,650 - 1,82,536

May-16 13,167 134 0.957 13,050 91,906 34 7,650 -1,155 1,36,117

Apr-16 16,389 134 0.957 13,050 1,14,395 34 7,650 -1,393 1,60,665


Mar-16 19,887 134 0.957 13,050 1,38,811 34 7,650 -1,651 1,88,982

Feb-16 18,909 134 0.956 13,050 1,31,985 34 7,650 -1,585 1,81,689

Jan-16 15,537 134 0.955 13,050 1,08,448 34 7,650 -1,369 1,58,003

Dec-15 15,819 134 0.953 13,050 1,10,417 34 7,650 - 1,62,285

Nov-15 22,005 134 0.960 13,050 1,53,595 34 7,650 -1,880 2,15,007

Oct-15 15,810 120 0.957 11,700 1,10,354 20 4,500 -1,332 1,51,334

Sep-15 20,823 120 0.958 11,700 1,45,345 20 4,500 -1,716 1,92,475

Aug-15 Data unavailable for August 2015

Jul-15 19,324 118 0.960 11,550 1,34,882 18 4,050 -1,602 1,79,461

Jun-15 20,564 118 0.959 10,010 1,44,154 18 3,510 -1,661 1,85,738

May-15 Data unavailable for May 2015

Apr-15 15,528 118 0.969 10,010 1,08,851 18 3,510 -2,714 1,50,291

Mar-15 15,417 118 0.960 10,010 1,17,940 18 3,510 -1,363 1,52,275

Feb-15 20,521 118 0.967 10,010 1,79,559 18 3,510 -4,023 2,20,681

Jan-15 18,577 118 0.961 10,010 1,62,549 18 3,510 -1,875 2,07,856

Average 17,592 0.959 11,972 1,27,273 27.1 5,950 -1,503 1,74,055

Total 3,16,661 2,15,500 22,90,909 488 1,07,100 -27,061 31,32,983

Appendix II

Diesel Consumption Details

Month Running Hours (Hrs) Consumption (Ltrs) Energy Generated (kWh)

DG1 (600 kVA)

DG2 (125 kVA)

DG1 (600 kVA)

DG2 (125 kVA)

DG1 (600 kVA)

DG2 (125 kVA)

Jul-16 30.0 13.0 1,907 451 7,140 440

Jun-16 30.8 18.0 1,551 321 5,180 296

May-16 14.0 6.6 923 213 2,240 68

Apr-16 5.8 24.1 568 27 1,800 20

Mar-16 4.3 4.5 469 87 1,220 24

Feb-16 5.7 3.0 330 9 800 24

Jan-16 1.1 12.6 121 31 200 24

TOTAL 91.7 81.6 5,869 1,139 18,580 896


Appendix III-A

Area Wise Indoor Lighting Details – GRTE

Area Reference Fixture Type

Fixture Wattage

Qty Total Watts

Average Lux level

Mini Storage Space behind stairs T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 80

Storage of Spices and laminate rolls T5 Tube 1×28 W 32 896 61

Main storage space T5 Tube 1×28 W 49 1,372 32

Main storage space T5 Tube 1×14 W 7 98 32

Urad Dal Storage T5 Tube 1x28 W 12 336 61

Dispatch Section T5 Tube 1x28 W 5 140 216

Lab (next to dispatch) T5 Tube 1x28 W 2 56 64

wrapping + storage T5 Tube 1x28 W 60 1,680 60

export finished goods store T5 Tube 1x28 W 4 112 27

FFS T5 Tube 1x28 W 8 224 24

Dryer and Mixer T5 Tube 1x28 W 38 1,064 41

Dairymate section T5 Tube 1x28 W 2 56 168

Retort Section T5 Tube 1x28 W 15 420 166

Pouching T5 Tube 1x28 W 14 392 66

Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) T5 Tube 1x28 W 8 224 58

Preparation Section T5 Tube 1x28 W 14 392 55

JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch) T5 Tube 1x28 W 90 2,520 93

Storage Room (next to Dispatch) T5 Tube 1x28 W 92 2,576 107

Storage Room (next to Dispatch) LED 1×18 W 50 900 107

Entrance Lobby T5 Tube 2×28 W 2 112 159

Corridor/ Stairs T5 Tube 2×28 W 2 112 163

Admin Office - Reception Area CFL 2x18 W 8 288 97

Admin Office - Office area CFL 2x18 W 59 2,124 30

Around Manager's Cabin (used for storage) T5 Tube 1x28 W 6 168 41

Kitchen (QA lab) T5 Tube 1x28 W 3 84 98

Lab 2 T5 Tube 1x28 W 13 364 32

Manager’s Cabin T5 Tube 1x28 W 2 56 70

Appendix III-B

Area Wise Indoor Lighting Details - CRTE

Area Reference Fixture Type Fixture Wattage

Qty Total Watts

Average Lux level

Pouching T5 Tube 1×28 W 7 196 60

Cabin (Retort Control Room) T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 75

Corridor T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 34

Retort Room T5 Tube 1×28 W 8 224 67

Maintenance T5 Tube 1×28 W 6 168 43

Crate Storage T5 Tube 2×28W 8 448 131

Utensil washing area T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 140

Cooking section T5 Tube 1×28 W 7 196 121

Preparation Area T5 Tube 1×28 W 16 448 58


Refrigeration Area T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 38

Material Reception T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 32

Dry Material Store T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 36

Cabin T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 31

Process Section T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 31

Near main entrance - vegetable area T5 Tube 1×28 W 9 252 52

Appendix IV

Maintenance Measures for Electrical and Thermal Utilities24

Compressors

• Consider variable speed drive for variable load on positive displacement compressors.

• Use a synthetic lubricant if the compressor manufacturer permits it.

• Be sure lubricating oil temperature is not too high (oil degradation and lowered viscosity) and not too low (condensation contamination).

• Change the oil filter regularly.

• Periodically inspect compressor intercoolers for proper functioning.

• Use waste heat from a very large compressor to power an absorption chiller or preheat process or utility feeds.

Compressed Air

• Install a control system to coordinate multiple air compressors.

• Study part-load characteristics and cycling costs to determine the most-efficient mode for operating multiple air compressors.

• Avoid over sizing -- match the connected load.

• Load up modulation-controlled air compressors. (They use almost as much power at partial load as at full load.)

• Turn off the back-up air compressor until it is needed.

• Reduce air compressor discharge pressure to the lowest acceptable setting. (Reduction of 1 kg/cm2 air pressure (8 kg/cm2 to 7 kg/cm2) would result in 9% input power savings. This will also reduce compressed air leakage rates by 10%)

24 Sources:

(i) BEE Checklist & Tips for Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities

(ii) BEE Checklist & Tips for Energy Efficiency in Thermal Utilities


• Use the highest reasonable dryer dew point settings.

• Turn off refrigerated and heated air dryers when the air compressors are off.

• Use a control system to minimize heatless desiccant dryer purging.

• Minimize purges, leaks, excessive pressure drops, and condensation accumulation. (Compressed air leak from 1 mm hole size at 7 kg/cm2 pressure would mean power loss equivalent to 0.5 kW)

• Use drain controls instead of continuous air bleeds through the drains.

• Consider engine-driven or steam-driven air compression to reduce electrical demand charges.

• Replace standard V-belts with high-efficiency flat belts as the old V-belts wear out.

• Use a small air compressor when major production load is off.

• Take air compressor intake air from the coolest (but not air conditioned) location. (Every 5°C reduction in intake air temperature would result in 1% reduction in compressor power consumption)

• Use an air-cooled aftercooler to heat building makeup air in winter.

• Be sure that heat exchangers are not fouled (e.g. -- with oil).

• Be sure that air/oil separators are not fouled.

• Monitor pressure drops across suction and discharge filters and clean or replace filters promptly upon alarm.

• Use a properly sized compressed air storage receiver. Minimize disposal costs by using lubricant that shows demulsibility (ability to release water) and is an effective oil-water separator.

• Consider alternatives to compressed air such as blowers for cooling, hydraulic rather than air cylinders, electric rather than air actuators, and electronic rather than pneumatic controls.

• Use nozzles or venturi-type devices rather than blowing with open compressed air lines.

• Check for leaking drain valves on compressed air filter/regulator sets. Certain rubber-type valves may leak continuously after they age and crack.

• In dusty environments, control packaging lines with high-intensity photocell units instead of standard units with continuous air purging of lenses and reflectors.

Cooling Towers

• Control cooling tower fans based on leaving water temperatures.

• Control to the optimum water temperature as determined from cooling tower and chiller performance data.

• Use two-speed or variable-speed drives for cooling tower fan control if the fans are few.


Stage the cooling tower fans with on-off control if there are many.

• Turn off unnecessary cooling tower fans when loads are reduced.

• Cover hot water basins (to minimize algae growth that contributes to fouling).

• Balance flow to cooling tower hot water basins.

• Periodically clean plugged cooling tower water distribution nozzles.

• Install new nozzles to obtain a more-uniform water pattern.

• Replace splash bars with self-extinguishing PVC cellular-film fill.

• On old counterflow cooling towers, replace old spray-type nozzles with new square-spray ABS practically-non-clogging nozzles.

• Replace slat-type drift eliminators with high-efficiency, low-pressure-drop, self-extinguishing, PVC cellular units.

• If possible, follow manufacturer's recommended clearances around cooling towers and relocate or modify structures, signs, fences, dumpsters, etc. that interfere with air intake or exhaust.

• Optimize cooling tower fan blade angle on a seasonal and/or load basis.

• Correct excessive and/or uneven fan blade tip clearance and poor fan balance.

• Use a velocity pressure recovery fan ring.

• Divert clean air-conditioned building exhaust to the cooling tower during hot weather.

• Re-line leaking cooling tower cold water basins.

• Check water overflow pipes for proper operating level.

• Optimize chemical use.

• Consider side stream water treatment.

• Restrict flows through large loads to design values.

• Shut off loads that are not in service.

• Take blowdown water from the return water header.

• Optimize blowdown flow rate.

• Automate blowdown to minimize it.

• Send blowdown to other uses (Remember, the blowdown does not have to be removed at the cooling tower. It can be removed anywhere in the piping system.)

• Implement a cooling tower winterization plan to minimize ice build-up.

• Install interlocks to prevent fan operation when there is no water flow.

DG Sets


• Optimize loading

• Use waste heat to generate steam/hot water /power an absorption chiller or preheat process or utility feeds.

• Use jacket and head cooling water for process needs

• Clean air filters regularly

• Insulate exhaust pipes to reduce DG set room temperatures.

BEE Checklist & Tips for Energy Efficiency in Thermal Utilities

Boilers

• Preheat combustion air with waste heat. (22°C reduction in flue gas temperature increases boiler efficiency by 1%)

• Use variable speed drives on large boiler combustion air fans with variable flows.

• Burn wastes if permitted.

• Insulate exposed heated oil tanks.

• Clean burners, nozzles, strainers, etc.

• Inspect oil heaters for proper oil temperature.

• Close burner air and/or stack dampers when the burner is off to minimize heat loss up the stack.

• Improve oxygen trim control (e.g. -- limit excess air to less than 10% on clean fuels). (5% reduction in excess air increases boiler efficiency by 1% or: 1% reduction of residual oxygen in stack gas increases boiler efficiency by 1%)

• Automate/optimize boiler blowdown. Recover boiler blowdown heat.

• Use boiler blowdown to help warm the back-up boiler.

• Optimize deaerator venting.

• Inspect door gaskets.

• Inspect for scale and sediment on the water side. (A 1 mm thick scale (deposit) on the water side could increase fuel consumption by 5 to 8%.)

• Inspect for soot, fly-ash, and slag on the fire side. (A 3-mm thick soot deposition on the heat transfer surface can cause an increase in fuel consumption to the tune of 2.5%)

• Optimize boiler water treatment.

• Add an economizer to preheat boiler feedwater using exhaust heat.

• Recycle steam condensate.

• Study part-load characteristics and cycling costs to determine the most-efficient mode for operating multiple boilers.


• Consider multiple or modular boiler units instead of one or two large boilers.

Steam System

• Fix steam leaks and condensate leaks. (A 3-mm diameter hole on a pipe line carrying 7 Kg/cm2 steam would waste 33 Kilo liters of fuel oil per year).

• Accumulate work orders for repair of steam leaks that can't be fixed during the heating season due to system shutdown requirements. Tag each such leak with a durable tag with a good description.

• Use back pressure steam turbines to produce lower steam pressures.

• Use more-efficient steam de-superheating methods.

• Ensure process temperatures are correctly controlled.

• Maintain lowest acceptable process steam pressures.

• Reduce hot water wastage to drain.

• Remove or blank off all redundant steam piping.

• Ensure condensate is returned or re-used in the process. (6°C raise in feed water temperature by economizer/condensate recovery corresponds to a 1% saving in fuel consumption, in boiler)

• Preheat boiler feed-water.

• Recover boiler blowdown.

• Check operation of steam traps.

• Remove air from indirect steam using equipment (0.25 mm thick air film offers the same resistance to heat transfer as a 330-mm thick copper wall)

• Inspect steam traps regularly and repair malfunctioning traps promptly.

• Consider recovery of vent steam (e.g. -- on large flash tanks).

• Use waste steam for water heating.

• Use an absorption chiller to condense exhaust steam before returning the condensate to the boiler.

• Use electric pumps instead of steam ejectors when cost benefits permit.

cbalance solutions pvt. ltd energy audit reportgits food unit energy audit report – april 2017...

Documents