Cooling Tower Water Savings Stakeholder Meeting #1 - DRAFT California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program

Transcription

1 1 Cooling Tower Water Savings Stakeholder Meeting #1 - DRAFT California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Energy Solutions August 25, 2010

2 Cooling Tower Water Savings Agenda CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 2 10:00-10:10 Introductions 10:10-10:20 Title 24 Background/Overview 10:20 11:45 Cooling Tower Water Savings Presentation 11:45 12:00 Wrap Up

3 3 IOU Support for 2011 Title 24 The California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) are actively supporting the California Energy Commission (CEC) in developing the state s building energy efficiency code (Title 24) Their joint intent is to achieve significant energy savings through the development of reasonable, responsible, and cost-effective code change proposals for the 2011 code update and beyond As part of the IOU effort, at the request of the CEC, we are hosting stakeholder meetings to get industry input and feedback on our code change proposals

4 4 Code Change Activity 2011 T-24 Base Code (Part 6 of Title 24) 2011 Reach Standard (Part 11 of Title 24) Green Building Standard i.e. CalGreen Voluntary standards that local governments can adopt Future Codes 2014 T-24 Future Reach Codes

5 Requirements for a Successful Code Change CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 5 To be included in the base code, a measure must: Be cost-effective based on the standards-induced additional first cost, maintenance costs, measure life, and energy cost savings typically according to the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) life-cycle costing methodology and weather data to be provided by the California Energy Commission Be possible to implement using equipment that is available from multiple providers or that is reasonably expected to be available following the code change

6 6 Stakeholder Meetings Process Minimum of three meetings: First: present scope, request data Code change direction and possible options Methodology Best practices, market data Second: present findings Results of data collection and analysis Cost effectiveness Strawman proposed code language Third/final: present proposed code language All meetings can be attended remotely

7 7 Submitting Comments Informal Comment Process Comments can be submitted to CASE authors, substantive comments will be receive responses. Questions and responses will not be posted online, but common or frequent questions will be communicated as necessary between stakeholders The team will work with stakeholders to resolve issues as best we can. The CEC has a formal comment process during later stages of the official rulemaking process

8 8 Types of Code Change Mandatory Measure: The change would add or modify a mandatory measure Mandatory measures must be satisfied whether the prescriptive or performance method is used to show compliance Prescriptive Requirement: The change would add or modify a prescriptive requirement that must be met when using prescriptive compliance approach When using performance compliance (computer modeling), prescriptive requirements define a standard design (which sets the energy budget) and are not mandatory

9 9 Types of Code Change Ctd. Compliance Option: The change would add or modify a new measure to the list of existing compliance options for meeting the Standards using the performance approach. Modeling: The change would modify the calculation procedures or assumptions used in making performance calculations. This change would not add a compliance option or a new requirement, but would affect the way that trade-offs are made.

10 10 Schedule: Key Dates Mar Dec 2010 CEC develop foundation /methodology IOUs: Conduct research, and cost effectiveness analysis Present results at stakeholder meetings Dec 2010 IOUs finalize code change proposals for submittal to CEC Feb 2011 CEC opens Rulemaking for Title 24, develop 45-day language June 15, 2011 Title 24 Adoption date Jan. 1, 2013 Title 24 Implementation date

11 11 Meeting Protocols Please DO NOT place your phone on HOLD Please mute your microphone, unless you want to speak Ask questions/comment by chat or by voice We want to hear your concerns Opposing viewpoints are encouraged We are seeking information, not resolution Time is limited Raise your hand and be acknowledged by presenter Clearly state your name and affiliation prior to speaking Speak loudly for the people on the phone Minutes and presentation material will be available online we will distribute link

12 12 Cooling Tower Water Savings Measure Slides California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Erika Walther Energy Solutions August 25, 2010

13 13 Cooling Tower Water Savings Cooling tower overview Cooling tower water use Measure scope Summary of current code requirements Typical practice Summary of potential code change proposals Data Request

14 Cooling Tower Water Savings Cooling Tower Overview CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 14 Use evaporative cooling to remove heat from watercooled A/C systems and from industrial processes that produce heat Water Balance: M = E + B + D

15 Cooling Tower Water Savings Cooling Tower Water Use CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 15 Typical cooling tower circulates ~3 gpm per ton of cooling; loses 1-2% to evaporation, blowdown and drift Typical water balance for 1,000 ton cooling tower with 10 F range (water entering and leaving condenser): Evaporation 1% Blowdown 0.5% Drift 0.2% E + B + D = 51 gpm, or 12,240,000 gpy Less frequent blowdown/increased CoC water savings Maximum CoC is limited by TDS in makeup water and effectiveness of chemical treatment of tower water

16 Cooling Tower Water Savings Measure Scope CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 16 New construction, major renovation, and replacement of existing cooling towers Commercial/ Industrial/ Institutional Evaporative Cooling Towers Cost-effectiveness may determine a minimum size

17 Cooling Tower Water Savings Existing Code Requirements CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 17 ASHRAE P, Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings, Section 6: Water Use Efficiency A/C systems only b. Mandatory requirement that cooling towers and evaporative coolers shall be equipped with makeup and blowdown meters, conductivity controllers, and overflow alarms if cooling tower flow through is over 500 gpm; and shall be equipped with efficient drift eliminators that achieve specific reductions Prescriptive option that cooling towers with makeup waters having less than 200 ppm (mg/l) of total hardness (calcium carbonate) achieve 5 cycles of concentration; and for makeup waters having more than 200 ppm (mg/l), 3.5 cycles of concentration Exception where TDS concentration of discharge water exceeds 1,500 ppm (1,500 mg/l), or silica exceeds 150 ppm (150 mg/l) measured as silicon dioxide before the above CoC are met

18 Cooling Tower Water Savings Existing Code Requirements CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 18 Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) Section 112 Mandatory Requirements for Space-conditioning Equipment. Table 112-G: Requires minimum gpm/ hp (max flow rate of the tower/ fan nameplate rated motor power) Section 144 Prescriptive Requirements for Space Conditioning Systems. Part (h) Heat Rejection Systems: Fan Speed Control, Tower Flow Turndown, Limitation on Centrifugal Fan Cooling Towers Part (i) Limitation of Air-Cooled Chillers: Chilled water plants with more than 300 tons total capacity shall not have more than 100 tons provided by air-cooled chillers. Exception for water quality at the building site that fails to meet manufacturer s specification for the use of water-cooled equipment. Title 24, Part 2 (Building Code) Codes regarding use of non-combustible materials Cooling Technology Institute s Acceptance Test Code for Water Cooling Towers Provides procedures for testing and evaluation of thermal capability of cooling towers. May have procedures applicable to water conservation tests.

19 Cooling Tower Water Savings Existing Code Requirements CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 19 [Placeholder for IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement ]

20 Cooling Tower Water Savings In-progress Code Requirements CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 20 International Code Council, 2009/10 code development cycle International Energy Conservation Code Table (8) - same as T24, Part 6 Table 112-G ASHRAE 190P, Standard for the Efficient Use of Water in Building, Site and Mechanical Systems TBD: Draft Standard not yet released, but cooling towers will be addressed

21 21 Cooling Tower Water Savings Typical Practice Cooling tower system water chemistry is managed to control: Scale Corrosion Biological fouling Water chemistry and frequency of blowdown is managed by a third party Cooling tower facility manager may not be aware of what CoC is being achieved, or losses that may be occurring

22 22 Cooling Tower Water Savings Typical Practice CoC ranges from 1 (constant bleed) to 10+, and averages 3-4, across the state Koeller and Company PBMP report for CUWCC (2006) - 3 cycles PG&E Cooling Tower code change proposal, references Chem- Aqua as source (2002) 4 cycles Similar for nationwide USDOE FEMP BMP (2010) 2 to 4 cycles North Carolina DENR Water Efficiency Manual (2009) 2 to 3 cycles Constant bleed is a water chemistry management strategy used in some (smaller?) cooling towers

23 23 Cooling Tower Water Savings Potential Code Change Proposals 1) Mandatory requirement for controls 2) Mandatory requirement for Cycles of Concentration (based on water quality) 3) Voluntary requirement for water re-use Potential Code Change Feasibility and Challenges Cost Estimating Planned Data Collection and Analysis Data Request

24 Cooling Tower Water Savings Potential Code Change Proposal CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 24 Mandatory Requirement for Controls Install flowmeters on bleed and makeup water lines, overflow alarm, and conductivity meter for controlling blowdown. Equip cooling towers with efficient drift eliminators that achieve drift reduction to a maximum of 0.002% of the re-circulated water volume for counterflow towers and 0.005% of the re-circulated flow for crossflow towers. Affects all buildings covered under T24, Part 6

25 Cooling Tower Water Savings Potential Code Change Proposal 25 Mandatory Requirement (if enforcement can be addressed ) Achieve a minimum of 5 CoC in regions with makeup water having less than 200 ppm of total hardness expressed as calcium carbonate. Achieve a minimum of 3.5 CoC in regions with makeup water having more than 200 ppm of total hardness expressed as calcium carbonate. Exception: Where TDS concentration of discharge water exceeds 1,500 ppm, or the silica exceeds 150 ppm measured as silicon dioxide, before the above CoC requirements are reached. Affects all buildings covered under T24, Part 6

26 26 Cooling Tower Water Savings Feasibility and Challenges Measures accepted by range of stakeholders under ASHRAE 189.1P Cost-effectiveness yet to be determined Want to avoid shift to less expensive, less efficient air-cooled equipment Performance verification/enforceability of COC requirement Documentation of water quality Documentation of CoC

27 27 Cooling Tower Water Savings Cost Estimating Installed costs of the following for new construction, major retrofit and replacement markets: Conductivity meters Flow meters Overflow alarm Drift eliminators Maintenance costs i.e., will use of controls decrease or increase maintenance costs? Water costs

28 Cooling Tower Water Savings Planned Data Collection and Analysis 28 Determine baseline water use and savings Market data from manufacturers, distributors, industry groups (e.g., CTI) Number and size of cooling towers in CII sector New construction estimates to be provided by CEC Typical practices of newly installed cooling towers with regard to controls What percentage of newly installed CTs are installed without controls? If not available, use existing cooling tower practices as proxy. Of those that are installed with controls, which controls are installed? Statewide average CoC - is 3, 4 or other value an accurate baseline? For controls measure, assume achieved CoC and calculate water savings

29 29 Cooling Tower Water Savings Planned Data Collection and Analysis Equipment cost data Manufacturers and distributors MEANS data Water cost projections DOE Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards data (2010) Black & Veatch Water Charge Survey, 2006 (to be updated in 2010) Develop a population-weighted average by climate zone if feasible Embedded energy 9,977 kwh/mg Population-weighted for Northern and Southern California using data from an Energy Commission PIER study (2006)

30 Cooling Tower Water Savings Data Request CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 30 Survey information to be requested from cooling tower water quality management companies and cooling tower maintenance companies Prevalence of conductivity controls, flow meters, overflow alarms, and drift eliminators by size category (e.g., <100 tons, tons; 500 tons or greater) Typical practices by size category Conductivity setpoints for blowdown CoC achieved Prevalence of constant bleed Survey information to be requested from cooling tower manufacturers Market share of system sizes by market sector

31 31 Cooling Tower Water Savings Additional Potential Code Change Proposal Voluntary/ Part 11 (?) Requirement for Water Re-use Minimum of 5% of make-up water must be from on-site or off-site non-potable water source

32 32 Cooling Tower Water Savings Feasibility and Challenges Many possible sources Rainwater and stormwater A/C or steam condensate Filter and membrane reject water Foundation drain water Cooling tower/ boiler blowdown On-site treated graywater and wastewater Reclaimed water from wastewater tx plant

33 Cooling Tower Water Savings Feasibility and Challenges CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 33 Sources are of varying quality May contain impurities such as salts, metals, organics Can have more or less TDS than municipal freshwater High COD (organic compounds), ammonia and phosphate leading to biological fouling Determination of conservative ratio of non-potable to potable appropriate for cooling tower Any source will likely require on-site treatment for reuse in cooling tower Treatment can create problems E.g., chlorine-based agents chloride-induced pitting Retrofitting plant piping can be complex and expensive Energy penalty Options and cost-effectiveness will vary from site to site Enforcement

34 Cooling Tower Water Savings Cost Estimating CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 34 Offsets increasing costs of freshwater and wastewater On-site treatment may remove regulated substances from source discharge water and associated fees Capture and on-site treatment Effects on cooling tower water chemistry and maintenance

35 Cooling Tower Water Savings Planned Data Collection and Analysis 35 Case studies/ feasibility studies Water quality for various sources of reused water Onsite treatment options and costs

36 Cooling Tower Water Savings CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 36 Specific Stakeholder Requests We are requesting input from manufacturers, distributors and industry groups regarding Installed costs of flow meters, conductivity controllers, overflow alarms and drift eliminators Cooling tower market data: Tonnage and distribution across sectors We are requesting input from cooling tower managers and water quality management companies regarding Typical practices e.g., CoC, conductivity setpoints, incidences of constant bleed Prevalence of currently installed flow meters, conductivity controllers, overflow alarms and drift eliminators Applications of water reuse in cooling towers

37 Cooling Tower Water Savings Stakeholder Meeting #1 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 37 QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Erika Walther (510) x224