Technical Evaluation and Analysis of Energy Conservation, System Improvement and GHG Emissions Reduction from Capacitor Installation on Agricultural Pumpset Motors February 2013 Sustainable Hyderabad Project: Implementing cooperative and technical solutions to increase energy efficiency in irrigation
Transcript
Slide 1
Slide 2
Technical Evaluation and Analysis of Energy Conservation,
System Improvement and GHG Emissions Reduction from Capacitor
Installation on Agricultural Pumpset Motors February 2013
Sustainable Hyderabad Project: Implementing cooperative and
technical solutions to increase energy efficiency in
irrigation
Slide 3
Project Scope cBalance Solutions Hub2 1.DISCOM Co-Operative
Electric Supply Society (CESS) 2.No. of Sub station 2 a)Vattemula
Sub-station 33/11 KV b)Sanugula Sub-Station 33/11 KV 3.No. of
Feeder 4 a)Namiligondapally Feeder 11 KV b)Vattemula Feeder 11KV
c)Sanugula Feeder 11 KV d)Lingampet Feeder 11 KV 4.Selected feeder
for capacitors installation: a)Namiligondapally Feeder 11 KV
b)Sanugula Feeder 11 KV 5.Total no. of DTR under Namiligondapally
& Sanugula feeder: a)100 KVA 35 No. b)63 KVA 7 No. 6.Total
Capacity of DTRs 3941 KVA 7.No. of Villages 5 a)Namiligondapally
b)Vattemula c)Kothapet d)Sanugula e)Ramaraopali
Slide 4
Project Scope cBalance Solutions Hub3 8.Total No. of Pumps 809
9.Total Capacity of all pumps 3028 HP 10.Pump Type Classifications:
Pump RatingWell TypePump TypeNo. of Pumps 3 HPShallow
wellCentrifugal312 5 HPShallow wellCentrifugal203 5 HPBore
wellSubmersible248 7.5Shallow wellCentrifugal4
Slide 5
Study Scope cBalance Solutions Hub4 1.DISCOM Co-Operative
Electric Supply Society (CESS) 2.Sub station- Vattemula Sub-station
33/11 KV 3.Feeder Namiligondapally Feeder 11 KV 4.Total no. of DTR
under Namiligondapally feeder: a)100 KVA 13 No. b)63 KVA 3 No.
5.Total capacity of DTRs 1489 KVA 6.Total area covered 10.07 Kms
7.Total No. of Pumps 325 8.Total Capacity of all pumps 1176.5HP
10.Pump Type Classifications: Pump RatingWell TypePump TypeNo. of
Pumps 3 HPShallow wellCentrifugal181 5 HPShallow wellCentrifugal70
5 HPBore wellSubmersible70 7.5Shallow wellCentrifugal4
Slide 6
DTR Selection Methodology cBalance Solutions Hub5 Pump
RatingWell TypePump TypeNo. of PumpsCategory 3 HPShallow
wellCentrifugal181A 5 HPShallow wellCentrifugal70B 5 HPBore
wellSubmersible70C 7.5Shallow wellCentrifugal4D 1.Ideal DTR defined
as DTR with 33% distribution across categories A, B, C 2.Deviation
from ideal distribution calculated for each DTR: = (% of Category A
Pumps 33%) + (% of Category B Pumps 33%) + (% of Category C Pumps
33%) 3.DTRs with lowest sum of differences and mix of overloaded /
non-overloaded DTRs selected for study
cBalance Solutions Hub7 Challenging Field Study Non-
Cooperation of Farmers Disconnected Capacitors Availability of
Water for Pumping Power Supply Timings System Inequilibrium
Challenges to Ideal Selection & Evaluation Methodlogy
Evaluation Scope cBalance Solutions Hub11 1.Selected DTRs for
study : a)KTP I 100 KVA b)VTM IX 100 KVA c)NGP II 100 KVA d)NGP III
100 KVA 2.No. of Pumps connected with selected DTRs 122 3.Total
capacity of pumps connected with selected DTRs 450 HP 4.No. of
Villages covered - 3 a)Namiligundipalli b)Vattemula c)Kothapet
Slide 13
Results cBalance Solutions Hub12 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 14
Results cBalance Solutions Hub13 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 15
Results cBalance Solutions Hub14 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 16
Results cBalance Solutions Hub15 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 17
Results cBalance Solutions Hub16 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 18
Results cBalance Solutions Hub17 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 19
Results cBalance Solutions Hub18 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 20
Results cBalance Solutions Hub19 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 21
Results cBalance Solutions Hub20 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 22
Results cBalance Solutions Hub21 Method 1: KTP - I
Slide 23
Results cBalance Solutions Hub22 Method 1: VTM - IX
Slide 24
Results cBalance Solutions Hub23 Method 1: VTM - IX
Slide 25
Results cBalance Solutions Hub24 Method 1: VTM - IX
Slide 26
Results cBalance Solutions Hub25 Method 2: KTP - I
Slide 27
Results cBalance Solutions Hub26 Method 2: KTP - I
Slide 28
Results cBalance Solutions Hub27 Method 2: KTP - I
Slide 29
Results cBalance Solutions Hub28 Method 2: KTP - I
Slide 30
Results cBalance Solutions Hub29 Method 2: KTP - I
Slide 31
Results cBalance Solutions Hub30 Method 2: KTP - I
Slide 32
Results cBalance Solutions Hub31 Method 2: KTP - I
cBalance Solutions Hub39 ParameterI/kWkVA/kWkVAR/kW
BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter min 4.001.150.54 25%-ile
5.211.170.59 Median 5.341.190.65 Mean 5.49 6.432 1.19 1.111 0.64
0.741 75%-ile 6.041.210.68 max 7.081.260.75 Method 2: NGP - II
Results
Slide 41
cBalance Solutions Hub40 ParameterI/kWkVA/kWkVAR/kW
BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter min 4.773.341.170.780.680.36
25%-ile 5.044.231.201.130.680.52 Median 5.554.771.201.160.690.56
Mean 5.404.781.251.170.720.56 75%-ile 5.735.101.221.170.700.59 max
5.956.641.561.730.890.75 Method 2: NGP - III
Slide 42
ENERGY Conservation 41 Value Additions Reduce Costs, Reduce
Risks cBalance Solutions Hub
Slide 43
42 Value Additions - Reduce Costs, Reduce Risks POTENTIAL
Conservation Case Scenario: - I 2 R Losses reduction and reduced
kVA generation by utility - 3028 hp connected load per feeder - PF
improvement from 0.8 to 0.9 - kVA/kW reduction of 9.4% - I/kW
reduction of 7.7 % - 3.5 km distance of pump from Feeder - 34 mm2
dia. aluminum conductor - Andhra Pradesh Grid Electricity GHG EF =
0.91 kg CO2e/kWh - 910 hrs. operation per year (5 hrs/day, for 6
months)