water production and distribution real-time energy ... · water production and distribution...
TRANSCRIPT
Water
Production
and
Distribution
Real-Time
Energy
Management
AWWA DSS
September
2009
Presentation – Table of Contents
I. Project IntroductionA. Project OverviewB. Optimization Project DriversC. Initial Feasibility Study Analysis
II. Detailed Design of EM&OA. System Configuration and BenefitsB. HAZOP Meetings and Constraints C. Hydraulic AnalysisD. Feasibility Study and Savings Review E. EMS Software Design Specification F. SCADA / HMI Interface & IT Design
III. ImplementationA. Implementation Plan/ScheduleB. Savings Review and ROI
Gwinnett EM&O Project Overview
• Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources
◦ Energy Management and Operations Optimization
– CH2M HILL, Inc.
– Derceto, Inc. USA
• Feasibility Study: Nov 2006 – Feb 2007
• Detailed Design: Nov 2008 – Apr 2009
• SW Configuration /FAT: Apr 2009 – Jun 2009
• Field Installation/Test: Sep 2009 – Nov 2009
• System Savings Starts: Nov 2009
OPTIMIZATION PROJECT DRIVERS
1. Rising Energy Costs
- (Second largest cost behind labor, GCDWR ~32% increase in 1 year)
2. Must manage energy cost in real-time rate environment
- GCDWR on GP day ahead real-time hourly pricing
3. Need to reduce energy use (and GHG emissions)
- 85% Energy Use is Pumping - Manage pumping for best efficiency.
4. Must maintain and improve Water Quality
- Improve management of tank turnover
5. Need to operate more consistently to best utilize & protect assets
- Utilize holistic optimizer that will not breach system constraints
6. Need to minimize water waste
- Utilize optimization tool with demand prediction, and mass balance approach that adapts and to changing conditions in real-time allowing more efficient management production and distribution.
Typical Power Use in a Water System
Backwash, 5%
High Zone Pumps, 21%
Main Zone Pumps, 37%
Raw Water Pumps, 31%
Other (HVAC, Lighting), 6%
89 %+ of Water System Energy Use is in PumpingEnergy Costs Typically 2nd Behind Labor20 % of all energy used in California is Water Pumping50 % of all energy use in Dallas, TX is Water Pumping
Key Cost Reduction Techniques
• Moving Energy (kWh) in Time *
• Reducing Demand Charges
(kW) *
• Generating Efficiency Gains
◦ Using most efficient
combination of pumps and
running them
• Selection of lowest production
cost sources of water
• Selection of lowest cost
transport path for water
6
Pump
lifecycle costs
Solving the Energy Equations
• Numerically impossible to solve, but the following techniques have been attempted
◦ Localized optimization at each pump station using profiling or time triggers typically via PLC
◦ Expert Systems using cascading rules
◦ Advanced techniques using Genetic Algorithms (GA)
◦ Multi-Objective Polynomial Systems (MOPS)
◦ Dynamic Programming with Stochastic analysis
• All above make considerable assumptions and do not achieve optimality, operate as advisory, and require significant input.
• In 2001 AWWA report said “the market is waiting for an off-
the-shelf solution”
What will Gwinnett EM&O System do?
• Interfaces directly to existing SCADA with minimal equipment, instrumentation or hardware changes
• Operational tool to schedule pumps/valves to achieve lowest overall cost (without breaching constraints)
• Solves mass-balance first (i.e. must deliver water)
• Aims to minimize costs of energy (best use of off-peak rates)
• Aims to maximize energy efficiency of pumps (BEP)
• Has shown to improved water quality by managing turnover
• Runs in real time – Like an autopilot
• Recalculates schedule (next 24-48 hours) every 1/2-hour, adapting to changing conditions of the day
EM&O SystemWill Take Advantage of Real-Time Energy Pricing
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Us
ag
e
Month
Scenic East Energy Usage ComparisonPeak Part Peak Off Peak
takes max advantage of off peak rates
EM& O Benefit – Energy Load Shifting
Derceto installed
EBMUD
Max Peak-Time kW (May 2006)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
1-M
ay
2-M
ay
3-M
ay
4-M
ay
5-M
ay
6-M
ay
7-M
ay
8-M
ay
9-M
ay
10-M
ay
11-M
ay
12-M
ay
13-M
ay
14-M
ay
15-M
ay
16-M
ay
17-M
ay
18-M
ay
19-M
ay
20-M
ay
21-M
ay
22-M
ay
23-M
ay
24-M
ay
25-M
ay
26-M
ay
27-M
ay
28-M
ay
29-M
ay
30-M
ay
31-M
ay
Day
Su
m o
f k
W a
t W
TP
an
d I
nta
ke
s
Observed With Derceto Expected Without Derceto
5 MW Reduction
WaterOne
EM& O Benefit – Peak kW Reduction
EM& O System – Targets Highest Efficiency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
020
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Eff
icie
ncy (
%)
Head
(ft)
Flowrate (MGD)
Combining Pumps
Telemetry Points Paper Curve (1 pump)
Paper Curve (2 pumps) Scaled Curve (1 pump)
Scaled Curve (2 pumps) Scaled Efficiency Curve (1 pump)
Scaled Efficiency Curve (2 pumps) Series8
EM& O – Chooses Efficient Pump Combinations
led to a 8% energy reduction to move the same volume of water
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
To
tal
En
erg
y U
sag
e (
kW
h)
Volume of Water Moved (MG)
Efficiency Comparison Total Energy Usage v Volume of Water Moved
2002 - 2003
2003 - 2004
2004 - 2005
2005 - 2006
Before AQUADAPT
After AQUADAPT
EBMUD
EM&O – Pumping Efficiency Gains
GCDWR - Feasibility Phase Analysis
• Studied Historical Operations In Detail
◦ Historical Energy Bills
– Understand current and available tariffs and
◦ SCADA System Information
– Understand sources , storage and demands on system
– Study system pumps, efficiencies, and constraints
– Identify flows, pressures, and levels for study period
◦ Build calibrated model of exactly how system operates
• Selected strategies for improvements
• Scale savings for a year
• Estimate Costs of Installation
• Evaluate business case / projected ROI for Optimization
SC to Lanier Raw Water Historical Summer Operation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
15/0
6/2
006 0
:00
15/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
16/0
6/2
006 0
:00
16/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
17/0
6/2
006 0
:00
17/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
18/0
6/2
006 0
:00
18/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
19/0
6/2
006 0
:00
19/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
20/0
6/2
006 0
:00
20/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
21/0
6/2
006 0
:00
21/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
Date
MG
D a
nd
$/M
Wh
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MG
Derceto Raw Pumps from SC intake Historical Raw Pumps from SC intake Day Ahead Price
Derceto Raw Water Storage Min/Max Raw Lanier Storage
Raw Pumping – AQUADAPT Summer Alt 1
SC to Lanier Raw Water Summer Operation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
15/0
6/2
006 0
:00
15/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
16/0
6/2
006 0
:00
16/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
17/0
6/2
006 0
:00
17/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
18/0
6/2
006 0
:00
18/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
19/0
6/2
006 0
:00
19/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
20/0
6/2
006 0
:00
20/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
21/0
6/2
006 0
:00
21/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
Date
MG
D a
nd
$/M
Wh
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MG
Historical Raw Pumps from SC intake Derceto Raw Pumps from SC intake Day Ahead Price
Derceto Raw Water Storage Min/Max Raw Lanier Storage
Raw Pumping –AQUADAPT Summer Alt 2
SC to Lanier Raw Water Historical Summer Operation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
15/0
6/2
006 0
:00
15/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
16/0
6/2
006 0
:00
16/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
17/0
6/2
006 0
:00
17/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
18/0
6/2
006 0
:00
18/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
19/0
6/2
006 0
:00
19/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
20/0
6/2
006 0
:00
20/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
21/0
6/2
006 0
:00
21/0
6/2
006 1
2:0
0
Date
MG
D a
nd
$/M
Wh
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MG
Derceto Lanier FP Flow Rate Historical Lanier FP Flow Rate Day Ahead Price
Derceto Lanier CW Storage Historical Lanier CW Storage Min/Max CW Storage
Lanier FP Flow & CW Storage – AQUADAPT Summer
II. EM&O DETAILED SYSTEM DESIGN
EM&O - System Interface
Distribution
Mains/Pipes
Reservoirs/Tanks
PumpPump
PumpPump
Pump
Pump
Central SCADA Control System
Acts like an autopilot - adapting for changing conditions every 30 minutes
Pressure
Zones
Elevated
Storage
Raw & Treated
Water Facilities
Pressure
Zones
Key Aquadapt Modules
Water Utility SCADA System
PC on LAN
Application Manager
218
PC on
LAN
Dashboard
210
OPC
Current day / real-time
Data Cleaner
206
SCADA Interface
203
PC on
LAN
Operator Panel
201
Operations Simulator
209
Hydraulic Model
208
Primary Database (Live Server)
Backup Database
EM& O -HAZOP Meeting & Constraints
• Hazards and Operability (HAZOP) Workshops
• HAZOP Summary
• Constraints
◦ Reservoir operating levels
◦ Pressure constraints
◦ Pump station constraints
◦ Valve constraints
◦ WFP constraints
◦ Other constraints
◦ Other modes of operation
• Fill Valves Recommendations
Production Reservoirs Constraints
Reservoir Min Level (Ft) Max Level (Ft)
Lanier Raw Water 16 19
Shoal Creek Raw
Water
5 (2) 27
Lanier Clearwell 1 & 2 11 24
Lanier Clearwell 3 & 4 6 19
Lanier Clearwell 5 26 39
Shoal Creek Clearwells 15 (8) 28
• Clearwells historically operated above min level
Pump Min Runtime Constraints
Pump Station Min Runtime
(hrs)
Lanier Raw Water Pumps 4
Shoal Creek Raw Water to Shoal
Creek
4
Shoal Creek Raw Water to Lanier 4
Other pumps 0.5
•Soft constraint or hard constraint
WFP Flow Rate Change Example
EM& O - HYDRAULIC MODEL ANALYSIS
• Hydraulic Model
◦ AQUADAPT uses EPANet hydraulic model
◦ Extract physical data from model
◦ Extract calibrated pump curves
• Study SCADA pump performance data
• Analyze Quality of Pump Curve Data and
recommend pump testing as necessary
Example Calibrated Pump Curve
Pump Efficiency Improvements Example EBMUD
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Fre
qu
en
cy
Efficiency
EBMUD Pump Efficiency Improvements, 2003-2008
Pre-Aquadapt
Post-Aquadapt
Mean Pre-Aquadapt
Mean Post-Aquadapt
11 %
Pump Efficiency Improvements Example EBMUD
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
45 - 55% 55 - 65% 65 - 75% 75 - 85%
Av
era
ge E
ffic
ien
cy I
mp
rov
em
en
t (%
)
Original Average Efficiency Range (%)
EBMUD Aquadapt Pump Efficiency Improvements by Original Efficiency, 2003-2008
GCDWR PumpsEfficiency Improvements Analysis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Estimated Efficiency Improvements - GC DWR
Estimated Improvement
Average Efficiency
EM& O – SW DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
• Optimization Scope
◦ Facilities included in EMS
◦ Facilities excluded from EMS
◦ External connections
• Operator Interface
◦ Configuration
◦ Example Screen shots
GCDWR Operator Panel – RWPS
GCDWR Operator Panel –Lanier North High Service Pumps
GCDWR Operator Panel –Lanier Central High Service Pumps
WQ & Storage Management
Dashboard – Water System Performance
Dashboard – Pump Performance
Reference Project – Eastern MWD
• 4 Operational Subsystems - Moreno Valley,
Perris, Sun City/Murrieta and East Valley
• 80 Tanks
• 70 Pumping Plants
• 5 Water Treatment Plants
• $2.5M energy spend
• 60 MGD peak summer
daily demand
• Annual Savings = 10% Stage 1 to 15% stage 2/3
• 2007 CA NV AWWA Energy Management Award
GCDWR Operator Panel – Energy Price Chart
GCDWR EM&O Savings Summary and ROI
EM&O FEASIBILITY STUDY – SAVINGS SUMMARY
• Initial study did not consider efficiency improvements or water treatment costs savings.
Total Energy Cost (12/05 – 11/06) $ 4.6 M
Energy Bill Amt Under RTP at WTP and RWPS $ 4.0 M
Energy Standard Bill $ 2.6 M
Projected Savings on Incremental Energy $ 215K (L) $ 225K (H)
Project Savings (%) on Incremental Energy 10.8% 11.3%
EM&O FEASIBILITY STUDY – SAVINGS REVIEW
• Energy pricing
◦ Higher prices as well as higher differential from peak
to off-peak
• Constraints
◦ Increased flexibility of changing WFP flow rates
◦ Lower usable volume at Lanier Raw Water
Reservoir
• Lower demand with water restrictions
• Efficiency Improvements estimated at 8% (use 4%)
• Overall Feasibility Savings still valid
EM&O DETAILED DESIGN - Savings Review
• Original Projected ROI of 32 months
◦ Projected energy Cost Increase 32% Since Study
◦ Revised Projected ROI of 25 months
AnnualEnergy Bill Savings Type $ Savings % Savings
$4.6 M Load Shifting $ 235K 5.1%
Efficiency Gains $ 160K 4.0%
TOTAL $ 395K 9.1%
Annual Energy Bill Savings Type $ Savings % Savings
$6.072 M Load Shifting $ 300K 3.5%
Efficiency Gains $ 160K 4.0%
TOTAL $ 460K 7.5%
EM&O Implement Plan/Schedule Milestones
• Software License purchase (04-AUG-09)
• Transdyn DYNAC SW Upgrade (31-AUG-09)
• SCADA Mods for EM&O Design (6-8wk,15-OCT-09 )
• Derceto Onsite Start-Up & Training (6wk,28-SEP-09)
• EM&O Online & Fully Operational (15-NOV-09)
• Other factors
EM&O Implementation Plan Key Dates
Task Anticipated Schedule
Software License and Support Proposals and
Contracts Negotiation
Feb 2009
Begin Phase 3 AQUADAPT Implementation Mar 2009
Begin SCADA System Interface Work Feb 2009
Final Design Report Mar 2009
Operator Interface Road-Show & Review Apr 2009
Completion of Aquadapt FAT Jun 2009
Develop and Factory Test Transdyn Interface Aug 2009
AQUADAPT Installation on DWR AQUADAPT
Servers
Sep 2009
Field Test/Verify Aquadapt/SCADA Interface Sep 2009
On-site installation and training Oct 2009
Complete Derceto Aquadapt System Delivery Nov 2009
Derceto AQUADAPT Utility Case Studies – USA
Energy Management InstallationsTotal Utility Population
Served
Annual Savings(US$)
Energy Cost Savings(%)
Annual CO2 Reduction
(Ton)
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland CA (2004)
1.3 M $370k 13% 800
Eastern Municipal Water District, Perris CA, Stage 1 (2006)
0.6 M $125k 10% 300
Eastern Municipal Water District, Perris CA, Stage 2 (2007)
0.6 M $150k 15% TBA
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Laurel MD (2006)
1.7 M $775k 11% 4,500
WaterOne, Kansas City KS (2006) 0.4 M $800k 20% 4,800
Region of Peel, ON (2009)*
1.1 M ~1M+* 16% TBA
Gwinnett County, GA (2009)* 0.4 M ~$460k* 10% TBA
* Factory Tests Complete – Projects being installed now
Questions?
• Brian Skeens, CH2M HILL
◦ 678-530-4327
• Wes Wood, Derceto, Inc.
◦ 770-995-7921
• Neal Spivey, Gwinnett County DWR