Today s Presentation. Innovative Technology Reduces Total Cost of Ownership

Transcription

1 Recarbonation Innovative Technology Reduces Total of Ownership Darryl L. Fendley, PE Environmental Engineer Product Manager Today s Presentation Recarbonation Technology Overview Innovative Technology Overview How It Works Case Study vs. Fine Bubble Diffusers Case Study vs. Side Stream Competitor Total of Ownership Calcs Conclusions 1

2 Total of Ownership Why Care? Bid Day Only Mentality Equipment selected solely on Bid Day Price (Equipment ) But what about Direct Operation s (CO 2, Power) Indirect Operation s (Operator Time) Construction / Installation s Maintenance s Recarbonation Technology Overview Purpose of Recarbonation Purpose of Recarbonation Produce stable water (in chemical balance) that causes neither scaling nor corrosion Traditionally for Hardness Removal More Recently for Removal of DBP Precursors Two Main Methods Direct Gas Injection Spargers Diffusers (Coarse or Fine) Side Stream Dissolution & Delivery 2

3 Direct CO 2 Injection Spargers and Coarse Diffusers Least Efficient Uncommon for Municipal Water Treatment Fine Bubble Diffusers More Efficient but Wasting Still Inherent Traditionally Popular for Municipal Water Treatment Not Common for New Designs (Increasing Shift to Side Stream Process) Side Stream CO 2 Delivery Gas is Pre-Dissolved in a Controlled Environment Before Injection Best Efficiency, Minimal Wasting Requires Pumping of Side Stream Carrier Water Most Popular Method in Municipal Water Treatment Typically Provides More Accurate, More Consistent Process Control Higher Efficiency = More Environmentally Friendly (Lower CO 2 Emissions ) But.Not All Side Stream Processes are Equal 3

4 Innovative Technology Overview Innovative Technology Overview BlueInGreen s CDOX Side Stream CO 2 Injection System Highest Efficiency Lowest CO 2 s Smallest Carrier Stream Lowest Pumping s Lowest Related Construction s (Smallest Piping, Valves, etc.) Fully Integrated, Factory Tested for Ease of Installation Accurate, Automatic Controls 4

5 Innovative Technology Explained P = K C H The amount of gas dissolved into solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of gas in contact with the liquid Innovative Technology Explained 5

6 Case Study vs. Fine Bubble Diffusers Case Study vs. Fine Bubble Diffusers Full Scale Test at 120 MGD Facility Used Process Water for Carrier Stream Demonstrated Automatic ph Control for over 3 weeks 6

7 Case Study vs. Fine Bubble Diffusers Diffusers CDOX 320 lb/hr 208 lb/hr 40% Reduction in CO 2 Usage (35% this day) Case Study vs. Fine Bubble Diffusers PlantProduction Production Change ph Setpoint System Response to Change ph Setpoint Change and Plant Production Rate Change 7

8 Case Study vs. Fine Bubble Diffusers Testing showed a 40% average CO 2 usage reduction Resulting in significant operation cost savings Current Future Operation Will Targets ph ph = 9.8 = 8.5 Target CO 2 Delivery Rate CO 2 Pumping Combined System ph (pph) Diffuser $337,500 $137,000 N/A $337,500 $137,000 CDOX $202,000 $82,500 $11,000 $6,000 $213,000 $88,500 Net Savings = $124,500 $48, yr Present CDOX OpEx Value 65% Savings of Diffusers of $1.5 Million Total of Ownership VERSUS FINE BUBBLE DIFFUSERS Using CO 2 = $70/ton, Energy = $0.07/kWh Plant Capacity (MGD) System Average CO2 Delivery Rate (lb/hr) CO2 Pumping Combined OpEx 20 yr PV Savings Diffuser 450 $138,000 N/A $138,000 $1,720,000 CDOX 270 $82,800 $7,500 $, $90,300 $1,125,000 $,, $595,000 Diffuser 150 $46,000 N/A $46,000 $573,000 CDOX 90 $27,600 $2,100 $29,700 $370,000 $203,000 Significant Savings even with Pumping 8

9 Case Study vs. Side Stream Competitor Case Study vs. Side Stream Competitor Full Scale Test at 160 MGD Facility Using Finished Water for Carrier Stream Demonstrated Automatic ph Control for 3 Months 9

10 6/24/2014 Case Study vs. Side Stream Competitor Competitor CDOX Competitor 2,020 gpm 24% Reduction in CO2 Usage 90% Reduction in 460Carrier 350 Water AND lb/hr lb/hr Power 210 gpm Case Study vs. Side Stream Competitor Testing showed a 90% Reduction in Power for Pumping and a 24% Average CO2 Usage Reduction System Target ph Average CO2 Delivery Rate (pph) Carrier Water Required (gpm) CO2 Pumping Combined C Competitor i ,020 $ $131,400 $ $64,000 $ $195,400 CDOX $99,900 $6,600 $106,500 Net Savings = $89, yr Present Value Savings of $1.1 Million 10

11 Total of Ownership VERSUS SIDE STREAM COMPETITOR Using CO 2 = $70/ton, Energy = $0.07/kWh Plant Capacity (MGD) System Average CO2 Delivery Rate (lb/hr) CO2 Carrier Water Required (gpm) Pumping Combined OpEx 20 yr PV Savings Competitor 300 $92, $17,200 $109,200 $1,361,000 CDOX 230 $70, $4,000 $74,500 $928,000 $433,000 Competitor 100 $30, $5,700 $36,400 $454,000$ CDOX 80 $24, $1,500 $26,000 $324,000 $130,000 Higher CO 2 and/or Power s = More Savings Conclusions For Mid-Size to Large WTF CDOX Provides the Lowest Total of Ownership Highest CO 2 Utilization Lowest Power Requirement Lowest Installation Minimal Maintenance For Small WTF CDOX More Capital Intensive Compared to Simpler Diffuser Systems Lower OpEx Savings Provide Longer Payback 11

12 QUESTIONS? Darryl L. Fendley, PE