Project Report 2008

8/12/2019 Project Report 2008

1/29

03PUBLICATION DATE: Q1 2009

REF NUMBER: REFRIGERATION SWG

Project Report 2008

REFRIGERATIONSPECIAL WORKING GROUP


2/29

Executive summary

This report summarizes activities of a special working group formed in 2008 to focus on en ergyefficiency in industrial refrigeration.

As an initiative within the Energy Agreements Programme, SEI launched Special Working Groupswhich are formed by groups of member companies in conjunction with SEI. This report details theinitial outcomes of the working group set up to consider industrial refrigeration (process and HVACchillers).

Refrigeration in this report designates both industrial installations u sing chilled heat transfer fluids intheir processes (chilled water, glycol/ water mixes and other heat transfer media such as synthetic andorganic fluids) and installations generating chilled water for the supply of cooling coils for space airconditioning. Space air conditioning may b e controlled to tight parameters (temperature an d

humidity) to satisfy production requirements.

Refrigeration is a significant energy user in most Irish industries where it accounts for from 10% to 60%of the sites electrical load depen ding of the industry sectors. Refrigeration is an area that presentssignificant potential for efficiency improvements.

Opportun ities to demonstrate best practice for energy-efficient refrigeration systems arise at thedesign, operation and maintenance stages of a system. If the commercial and industrial sectors inIreland identified these opportun ities and implemented best practices, they would reduce theirenergy usage su bstantially. This is the longer-term aspiration of the refrigeration special workinggroup.

The planned outcomes of the working group were:

investigate the extent of potential savings; collect data and audit refrigeration energy use; find out what measures would be quickly achievable; identify current bad practices; replicate best practices; identify issues and obstacles that need more detailed investigation.

Stakeholders

A group of companies expressed an interest in participating in the working group and collaborated toverify that significant energy saving opportunities arise in Refrigeration systems. They also identified

barriers and constraints that hinder the realisation of these energy savings as well as key areas thatrequire more detailed investigation

Fifteen companies participated in the working group whose implementation phase ran from August2008 to January 2009. They represented a variety of industries including pharmaceutical, food anddrink and electronics.

The 15 companies have an energy spend totalling 469 GWh of electrical energy, 66.8 GWh of which areestimated to be associated with refrigeration en ergy u sage. This is equivalent to 35,946 Tonnes of CO2emissions attributable to refrigeration.


3/29


4/29

3

Figure 1 Overview of current running costs and potential savings

This report describes typical refrigeration energy-saving opportun ities based on the refrigeration

surveys carried out. It also details a series of questions an d analyses that can be applied by other sitesto identify their energy-saving opportunities.

In conjunction with the groups activities a technical summary of the findings of the group and anumber of fact sheets are being published 4. Each plant also had its individual report given to it.

The working group works according to the principles and methodologies of IS393:2005. Thu s thefindings of the working group (as outlined in the recommendations section of the report) fall Review ofEnergy Aspects clause of IS393 and its continuous improvement process.. These findings will be fedback into the scoping stage of further working groups and subsequent stages of this working group.

Overall, the working group has achieved the main objectives. It has:

clearly shown that refrigeration offers important opportunities for saving energy

identified areas that require further work in subsequent phases

4Available from SEI


5/29

4

Phase two

The proposed nex t phase of this process in the area of industrial cooling is to focus on:

addressing barriers to energy-saving refrigeration initiatives through collaboration and casestudies;

implementing demonstration p rojects (h eat recovery from refrigeration systems, evaporativecooling systems, pumping and distribution systems efficiency improvement).


6/29

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary................................................................................................................................11 Introduction: focus on Industrial Refrigeration ....................................................................62 Fifteen companies join Refrigeration group..........................................................................73 Groups scope of work ...................................................................................................................94 Opportunities for improving Refrigeration energy consumption..............................135 Tools to check the operation of Refrigeration ................................................................... 176 Benchmarking based on data from site visits .................................................................... 227 Overall feedback on working group...................................................................................... 238 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................................... 259 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 27


7/29

6

1 Introduction: focus on Industrial RefrigerationThe En ergy Agreements Programme, launched in May 2006, is aimed at the largest energy u sersinterested in taking a strong, strategic and systematic approach to energy management.

Firms agree to implement the new Irish Energy Management Standard, IS393:2005, and to pursue anagg ressive programme of energy-efficiency action an d investment. In return, SEI offers relationshipsupport, advice, networking an d some financial supports. The primary aim of the agreementsprogramme is pooling energy-efficiency knowledge, increasing cost-competitiveness an d redu cingenergy consumption.

As an initiative within the Energy Agreements Programme, SEI launched Special Working Groups,which are formed by groups of member companies in conjun ction with SEI. A programme of work,determined by the group, may consist of shared studies, self-assessments, identification of energy-

saving projects, grouped special investigations, published guidelines and recommendations to thewider group of Energy Agreements participants. The Special Working Groups focus on a particular areaof technology or a special interest of IS393 implementation.

In a climate of increasing energy prices and concerns about our environmental footprint, reducing theenergy consumption at indu strial facilities is of increasing importance.

The overall objectives were:

1. To assist companies in achieving optimum energy performance from their refrigerationsystems.

2. To identify improvement projects.3. To develop benchmarks for comparison of refrigeration energy performance between

participating companies.

4. To understand best available technology.5. To improve understanding of applicable regulatory requirements.

This report forms a fundamental part of the data-gathering ex ercise being carried out by the group toidentify energy-saving opportunities typically found in refrigeration systems. Fifteen companiesparticipated in the refrigeration working group.

SEI commissioned refrigeration surveys at each of the participant facilities, using one of five appointed

consultancies. The purpose of these audits was to undertake a walkthrough of the system and offerverbal advice and information to company representatives. Each audit was fully documented: thefindings were outlined, recommendations made, opportunities for saving energy identified, and plansof action p rioritised. An overview of these au dit findings is su mmarised in this report.


8/29

7

2 Fifteen companies join Refrigeration groupTable 1 Participants in the working group

Participating company Sector Representatives Role

Leo Pharma Pharmaceutical Diarmaid Marrinan andRobert Holland

ParticipatingCompany

Glanbia Ingredients,Ballyragget

Food and Drink(Dairy)

John Finlay ParticipatingCompany

GSK Cork Pharmaceutical Terry OConnor followedby Ed Collins


Boston Scientific Galway Medical Devices Sean Dowd and PeterNichols


Baxter Healthcare Pharmaceutical Damien Kearney Participating

CompanyConnacht Gold Food and Drink

(Dairy)Marty Devrin Participating

Company

Bristol-Myers Squ ibb -Cruiserath

Pharmaceutical Paul Miller ParticipatingCompany

Eli Lilly Dunderrow Pharmaceutical Paul OSullivan ParticipatingCompany

Glanbia Consumer FoodsBallytore

Food and Drink(Dairy)

Richie Hogan ParticipatingCompany

Pfizer Little Island Pharmaceutical Martin Corkery and RobSherman


Green Isle Foods Food and Drink(Frozen Food)

Ian Leslie ParticipatingCompany

Novartis Ringaskiddy Pharmaceutical Martin OSullivan andEddie Kelleher


EMC Ireland Electronics Mick Hennessy andGerard Callaghan


Bulmers Food and Drink Patrick Morrissey andGerard Fox


Astellas (Du blin) `Pharmaceutical Gene Joyce ParticipatingCompany

RPS Energy Consultancy Ken Bruton Consultant

Industrial Utilities (IUL) Energy Consultancy Donall OBrien Consultant

Project Management (PM) Energy Consultancy Liam Crowe Consultant

Eirdata En vironmental ServicesLtd

Energy Consultancy Helene Riviere Steering TeamMember /

Consultant

Eirdata Environmental ServicesLtd

Energy Consultancy Liam McLaughlin Steering TeamMember /

Consultant

Sustainable Energy Ireland National EnergyAgency

John OSullivan Project Sponsor

Viegand Maagoe Energy Consultancy Peter Maage Petersenand Fridolin Mller Holm

Group Advisor

The total electrical usage of the participating compan ies is approximately 469,223 MWh of electricalenergy annually.


9/29

8

Total energy usage on refrigeration for the companies was approximately 66,814 MWh of electricity.The estimate of the percentage energy linked to refrigeration includes, where applicable, compressors,distribution pumps (primary and secondary), cooling tower fans and cooling water pumps,evaporative condensers fan s an d p umps.

At the sites surveyed, refrigeration systems surveyed accounted from 7% to 60% of a sites annualelectrical consumption. This large variance in refrigeration energy intensity is du e to the diversity ofactivities in the participating companies as can be seen in the table below.

Table 2 Sector characteristics

Industry Sector % of electricity used for

refrigeration

Pharmaceutical 7% to 25%

Milk processing (dairy) 25% to 30%

Frozen Foods 60%

Beverages 20% to 30%

Overview of sites characteristics:

There were two main operating temperature ranges:- Chilled water from 2C to 8C- Low temp. process chillers from -15C to -25C.

Types of refrigerants used: R22, Ammonia and HFCs (R134a, R407c, R507, R404a). Mix of technologies : air cooled, water cooled (from cooling tower water), evaporative

condensers.

The total carbon footprint associated with refrigerations systems electrical consumption for the groupis approximately 35,946 tonnes of CO2per annum.


10/29

9

3 Groups scope of workThe overall aim is to:

pool energy-efficiency knowledge increase cost-competitiveness reduce refrigeration energy consumption in the commercial and industrial sectors

3.1 MethodologyThe activities of the first of the working group were broken d own into distinct steps :

o Brainstorming workshop (26 August 2008)o Preliminary self-assessment (kick-off questionnaires)o Desktop studyo Detailed assessment of refrigeration by an external consultant at participating companies

(site visits between September and November 2008).

o Intermediate workshop, to review finding s from assessments (10thDecember 2008)o Final Report issued (January to March 2009)o Review of the recommendations by the companies an d action plan-March 2009o Feedback March 2009o Benchmarking March 2009


11/29

10

These steps are elaborated on in the following subsections.

3.1.1 Brainstorming workshop

The working group kicked off activities with a brainstorming workshop for participan ts. From this thescope of the refrigeration surveys to be carried out on site were outlined.

3.1.2. Desktop studyTwo pieces of research work were carried out:

1. The benefits of liquid pressure amplification.2. The effects of current legislation on refrigerant choice, e.g. phase out of R22.

3.1.3. Pre-visit questionnaireTo maximise usefu l time of consultants spent on site, the participating sites were asked to fill out a pre-visit questionnaire summarizing characteristics of their refrigerant plant.

3.1.4. Detailed assessment of refrigeration by external consultantOn completion of the pre-visit questionnaire recruited consultants carried out a more detailedassessment of the onsite refrigeration systems.

3.1.5. Final WorkshopThe workshop addressed:

o Summary of findings in the 14 sites surveyedo Case study on heat recovery from refrigeration plantso Pumping efficiency demonstrationo Site touro Discussion on common energy-efficiency issues/obstacles/barriers

3.1.6. Generation of reportThis report is a synopsis of the working groups activities.

3.1.7. Tasks and timescaleThe working group was active for aroun d 5 months, from August 2008 to Jan uary 2009. Thebreakdown of tasks and the periods in which they were implemented is summarised below.


12/29

11

Figure 2 Planned time scale of refrigeration working group activities

3.1.8. Metrics to measure performanceMetrics were developed to measure the g roups performance, assessed un der the following categories:

Process metrics:

1. active participation (% meetings attendance, % reply to questionnaire)2. cost: euros savings per engineering day engaged3. delivery (timeline and schedule)4. quality5. customer service (feedback, customer satisfaction)

Results metrics

6. implemented savings attributable to the working group (in kWh, euros, CO2)7. identified savings by the working group


13/29

12

The metrics and resulting values are summarised in the following table.

Table 3 Process metrics to assess performance of working group

Id Metric Description Intended Result Actual Result

1 ParticipationMeasure of active participation of

group members in makingsuggestions, giving feedback and

overall contribution

90% 59%5

2 Cost Euros savings identified perengineering day engaged

15,0006 12,055

3 Delivery Which deadlines have been met? 75% 50%7

4 Quality Measure of opportunityidentification as a direct result of

site investigation

428 75

5 Feedback Measure of positive feedback fromparticipating companies

14 out of 14 3 out of 5 wouldparticipate again

in a workinggroup. 2 out of 5

will considerparticipation

depending onresourcesavailable.

6 ImplementedSavings

Measure of savings committed toas a direct result of groups

activities

6.68 GWh9 6.9 GWh

7 Identifiedsavings

Identified savings 18.77 GWh10, 2,364,884 Euros (p.a)

16.2 GWh,2,047,907Euros

(p.a)

5See appendix 1 to check how these figures have been derived.

6Arbitrary aspiration.

72 out of 4 main deadlines have been met.

8At least 3 new opportun ities identified per site.

9

10% of sites combined electrical consumption linked to refrigeration

104% of sites combined total electrical consumption.


14/29

13

4 Opportunities for improving Refrigeration energy consumptionThe findings of the surveys, carried out by independent energy consultants, are outlined in thissection.

Implementing these savings would result in:

16,253 MWh reduction in electricity savings 2 million worth of energy savings a reduction of 8,744 tonnes in CO2emissions

The companies have committed to implementing on average 64% of the saving s identified during thesite visits. This will result in approximately 872,475 annual savings for the group or 3,725 tonnes ofCO2. These figu res are summarised in the following table.

Table 4 Summary of data from participating companies

Designation Electrical

Energy Usage (kWh) 469,223,053

Energy Cost () 59,122,105CO2Emissions attributable torefrigeration(Tonnes) 35,946

Refrigeration Usage (kWh) 66,814,361

Refrigeration Costs () 8,418,610

Average percentage ofrefrigeration to site electricalconsumption 18%

Saving s Identified (kWh) 16,253,228

Savings Identified () 2,047,907

Saving s Committed To (kWh) 6,924,408

Saving s Committed To () 872,475


15/29

14

Figure 3 Categories of opportunities (based on frequency of occurrence

Figure 4: Categories of opportunities (based on potential of calculated savings) kWh p.a.


16/29

15

Figure 5 Profile of estimated annual savings, for the sites A-G that gave feedback on action

plan (in kWh p.a)

Figure 6 Profile of estimated annual savings, for sites A-G that gave feedback on action plan,

per investment category (in kWh p.a)11

11Low cost is payback less than 1 year.


17/29

16

Figure 7 Profile of estimated annual savings, for the 7 sites that gave feedback on action plan,

per investment category and per area (in kWh p.a).


18/29

17

5 Tools to check the operation of RefrigerationThis sample log sheet allows a plant owner to capture indicators of its plants efficiency.

Name:

Date:

ID Description Log

Data

Available Y/N

Compressors (Tag/designation)

Ambient Conditions

ADry Bulb Temp -C

BRH - %

CWet Bulb Temp - C

Refrigeration Cycle Conditions

DEvap Leaving fluid temperature

EEvap Entering Fluid temperature

FCond Leaving fluid temp

GCond Entering fluid Temp

HCompressor capacity based on manufacture's data for the

actual suction/condensing temperatures


19/29

18

H-other

method

Compressor capacity based on measured fluid flow andtemperature difference, Tin-Tout

I Compressor Motor Efficiency

Compressor Swept volume

JSlide Valve -% or other capacity control

K Instantan eous compressor power-KWe

LSuction pressure -bar g

M Saturated Suction Temperature -C

N Discharge Pressure

O Saturated Condensing Temperature -C

P Hot gas temperature -C (discharge)

Q Liquid Line from condenser -C

R Suction line into comp -C

S Vapour superheated to comp -C (compressor suction inlet)

T Liquid Line from condenser sub-cooling -C

UOil Temperature

Oil Pressure


20/29

19

Oil Level

Evaporator

Actual flow rate - m3/s

Actual fluid temp. In

Actual fluid temp. Out

Actual Duty - kW

Actual fouling factor

Condenser

Actual Heat Rejection rate -kW

Parasitic Load

VPrimary pump kW input (measured if possible)

WSecundary pump kW input (measured if possible)

XOil Pump kW input (measured if possible)

Efficiency Indicators Calculations Calc

Evaporator Delta T E-D

Users Delta T ( if relevant)


21/29

20

Condenser Differential O-F

Evaporator Approach D-M

Suction Line Superheat S-R

Evaporator Superheat R-M

Discharge Superheat P-S

Ambient temperature DifferentialO-Cor O-

A

Y Carnot Cycle COP (with temperatures in Kelvin)M/(O-M)

Z Actual COP H/K

Compressor Efficiency Z/Y

is the compressor pressure adequate?

Maintenance Check

Are there any bubbles in the refrigerant's sight glass?

Does the receiver contain the right amount of refrigerant?

Is there damage to insulation ?

Is there any pipework that can be isolated?

Are there any unnecessary bends in the pipework?


22/29

21

Is compressor oil level correct?

Are there any obstructions at the condenser andevaporators, are the heat exchangers clean?

Are any gauges broken or inaccurate?

Are there any fittings missing ? (air vents, oil separators,strainers..)

Is the compressor abnormally noisy?

Check bearings temperatures (by hand)

Operational Check

Is there available data on the refrigeration plant?

Is there any unnecessary pumping going on?

Is the sequ encing of the compressors maximisingefficiency? (if relevant)

Are the operating parameters (readings above) optimumfor the current operating conditions (of weather load, etc)

Check time schedulers, is the chiller running when notneeded?

Check set points on operating parameters


23/29

6 Benchmarking based on data from site visitsRefrigerant

Suction

pressure

bar_a

Saturated

temp

Discharge

pressure

bar_a

Satura

ted

temp

delta PCondenser

Type

Carnot

COP

Outside

Temp if

available

(dry

bulb)

Condenser

Ambient

Temperature

Differential

(TD)

Snapshot

chilled

medium

temp

Actual

COP

Carnot

EfficiencyCOSP

R134a 3.4 4.3 8.07 31.6 4.67 Air Cooled 10.16 13.5 18.1 5.4 3.84

R134a 3 45 Air Cooled 6.58 13.5 31.5 5.4 3.8

R22 5.35 2.25 12.94 34 7.59 Air Cooled 8.67 8 26 3.4 2.5 0.29

R22 3.67 -9 13.548 35 9.88 Air Cooled 6.00 35 -3.2

R22 3.2 -12.5 16.5 43.5 13.30 Air Cooled 4.65 43.5 -3.2

R404a 1.73 -34 11.472 22 9.74 Water Cooled 4.27 22 -25

R407C 5.365 5 17.5 45.5 12.14 Air Cooled 6.95 10 35.5 9 4.8 69% 3.63

R407C 20 50 20.00 Air Cooled 5.46 50 1.8

R507 6.087 -1 13.919 28 7.83 Water Cooled 9.38 28 2.1

R507 1.31 -27.9 9.1 22 7.79 Water Cooled 4.91 22 -24.8 2.4 49% 1.3

4.2 -0.7 12 31 7.80 Evaporative 8.59 31 3

1.446 -26 10.031 25 8.59 Water Cooled 4.85 25 -22

3 -9 11.5 29.5 8.50 Evaporative 6.86 29.5 0

1.6 -23.8 11.34 29 9.74 Water Cooled 4.72 29 -19.2

R717

(ammonia)

2.36 -1 5 11.326 29 8.97 Evaporative 5.87 10 19 -12 3.25 55% 2

22


24/29

7 Overall feedback on working groupOn completion of the working group, feedb ack was obtained from the participating companies on thefunctionality of the group and on opportunities for improvement in future working groups.

7.1 Site Surveys5 sites gave feedback on the working group. This is not a very representative sample so numbers arenot expressed in percentages.

ExpectationsNotmet

met exceeded

3.1 Outcomes of working group 3 1

3.2 Site visits 2 2

3.3 Report quality 4

3.4 Workshop 1 3

3.5 Practical ben efits 2 1 2

The sites that found no practical benefits are sites where no new opportunities where identified, i.e.issues were already known on site.

Out of 5, only 1 site used the working group Dandelion website. The others did not use it mostly dueto lack of time.

7.2 Improvements to working groupThe following improvements to the working group were suggested:

- Sourcing/Supply of Contract Engineers to implement the projects, rather than focuson consultancy.

- Equipment vendors should be involved in the process to have technical questionsanswered faster.

- Ensure that consultant engineers working on projects are given sufficient time tocomplete them, particularly at the start of the p roject when they need to gatherinformation and gain knowledge.

Sug gestions for other SEI support were as follows:

- -More information-training on energy purchasing and understanding tariffstructures

- More information on grants available for projects.- Need to look at more renewable technologies, Heat pu mps , Biomass etc. May be

useful to have workshops on these.

23


25/29

24

7.3 Consultants Feedback1. Client engagement and assistance

a. For the majority of the sites assistance was given during the site surveys.b. Response to request for information, correspondence an d feedback was however

mixed.

2. Assessment of work completed by working g roup an d output for companiesa. Overall the working group gathered valuable information on the efficiency of

refrigerant plants in Ireland.

b. It highlighted the importance on focusing on the d istribution.3. High light any weaknesses of the SWG project and process followed.

a. The time line was too tight which impacted on the reports quality and meetingdeadlines.

b. The working group should have kicked off in July.c. As an initial attempt to assess the issues with process refrigeration, I think the

process worked well. The pressure on end users could have been reduced by using

resources at SEIs disposal, such as the sites agreement support managers as a

liaison between site and the consultant doing the study.

4. Suggested improvements if doing it againa. Sites agreement support manag er could be involved to liaise with the sites.b. The site could engag e a small fee for membership of a working group.c. Meeting with consultants from the technical panel before gen erating common

report/findings.

d. Participan t compan ies should show greater commitment to participation andfeedback. Possible issue individu al reports to them on their performance. Does this

indicate a lack of real commitment to energy efficiency improvement.

e. Some participants had simple housekeeping improvements already known but noplans to implement them.

5. If there was a next step, what would it bea. Carry out special investigations on grouped projects, and carry out full cost

benefit analysison studies

b. Working group or demonstration project focussed on pumping .


26/29

25

8 Conclusions and recommendationsThe following list looks at the plan ned deliverables from the working group.

8.1 Identify energy saving opportunitiesA diverse range of savings opportunities were identified as part of the onsite assessments. (These arecategorised in Section 5 of this report.)

Overall, it is felt that this area was well covered and that the objectives were achieved.

8.2 Tools to check Refrigeration operationA log sheet was developed for users to assess their refrigeration plant efficiency by looking atindicators and at operation and maintenance. However for most of the plants the instrumentation islimited (typically to suction and discharge pressure and oil temperature) and not all the indicatorscould be worked out. It can be noted that the newest plant presented more instrumentation andindicators of performance could then be calculated.

8.3 BenchmarkingSome benchmark on COP and condensing temperature were put together as can be seen in section 7.However more work is needed in that area due to lack of instrumentation in the majority of the plants.

Possible indicators to benchmark would be:

1. COP (benchmark between same categories of temperature levels)

2. COSP

3. Impact of auxiliaries on overall running cost

4. Carnot COP and compressor efficiency

5. Ratio kW heat rejection rate to kw electrical to auxiliaries (being fans if air cooled, pump an d

fans if cooling tower, pump and fan if Ec)

6. % of refrigeration cost to site total energy cost.

7. % of sites having adequate data for chiller performance measurement.

8. Difference between actual and design performance for:

- COP, COSP, approach temperature of heat exchangers (evaporators, condensers,

cooling towers, evaporative condensers)

- Capacity (cooling)


27/29

26

8.4 Overall progressOverall, the working group has achieved the main objective, it has successfully demonstrated asignificant opportunity for energy savings in the area of industrial refrigeration.

Proposed actions to promote energy efficient refrigeration systems are as follows:

- demonstration project on pu mping and distribution efficiency, potential to includeuniversities

- demonstration project on industrial cooling and free cooling

- measuring campaigns

- dissemination of information : training an d education on refrigeration systems

energy savings

- life cycle costing to demonstrate that decisions involving optimal energy efficientsystems are also economically optimal

- development of guidelines to improve contract for outsourcing refrigeration services.

- Development of gu idelines regarding performance contracting for new plants


28/29

27

-

9 AppendixTable 5 Details of Projects Metric number 1, participation

Participation Count % of group Comments

No. of returned pre visit questionnaires 7 47%

Site commitment on site visit 14 93% from consultant feedback

No. of Feedback received 7 47%

August Workshop attendance -# people 9 na including consu ltants

No. sites represented 4 27%

December Workshop attendance -# people 19 na including consu ltants

No. sites represented 12 80%

Average 59%


29/29

Sustainable Energy Ireland

Glasnevin Dublin 9 Ireland T +3531 8082100 info@sei ie

Documents

Project Report 2008