Compressed Air Systems: Fix Leaks

Overview
Leaks are expensive! According to DOE, most compressed air systems lose between 5% and 20% of compressed air to leaks. To find leaks, listen with the unaided ear or with an ultrasonic sensor. The quantity of air lost through the leaks can then be estimated by estimating the diameter of each leak and using the following relations. Another method of determining compressor power to feed leaks is to monitor compressor power when all production machinery is turned off. In general, we recommend inspecting the compressed-air system for leaks once a week by listening for leaks when all machinery is off or using an ultrasonic sensor.

Estimating Savings From Fixing Leaks

To estimate leakage rates from leaks at 100 psig, estimate the diameter of the leak and then use the following table. Equivalent Hole Diameter Leakage Rate scfm 1/64 " 0.25 1/32 " 0.99 1/16 " 3.96 1/8 " 15.86 1/4 " 63.44 3/8 " 142.74 Source: Compressed Air Systems, DOE/CS/40520-T2, 1984. The values in this table were computed from the S.A. Moss equation (Ingersoll-Rand Condensed Air Power Data, 1998) W(lb/s) = 0.5303 x A (in2) x C x P (psia) /
T ( R)

where C = 0.97 for a smooth edged hole and C = 0.61 for a sharp edged orifice. The equation can be modified to show air leakage in standard cubic feet per minute at T = 70 F = 530 R and the density of air at 70 F is 0.7494 lb/ft3 such that: V (scfm) = 0.5303 x / 4 x [D (in)]2 x 0.61 x P (psia) / [ s/min V (scfm) = 8.8356 x [D (in)]2 x P (psia)
530( R )

x 0.07494 lb/ft3] x 60

To estimate the power required to feed compressed air leaks, use the published compressor performance specifications. If the performance specifications are unavailable, it is reasonable to assume that most compressors generate about 4.2 scfm per

brake horsepower from the motor (or inversely, require about 0.25 hp/scfm of compressed air).

Using this number it is easy to estimate how much power the compressor requires to feed compressed air leaks. However, the energy savings from fixing leaks can be much less than the power required to feed the compressed air leaks depending on the type of compressor control. For example, if the compressor runs unloaded at 60% of full load power when not generating compressed air for leaks, then the energy savings will be only 40% of the power required to feed the leaks. The savings from modulating compressors are even less. Only when the compressor completely turns off when not compressing air will the electricity savings equal the power required to feed the leaks. Example The annual electricity cost to feed a single 1/16-inch diameter leak if a 90% efficient compressor motor runs 8,000 hours per year and electricity costs $0.06 /kWh would be about: 4 scfm x 0.25 hp/scfm x 0.75 kW/hp / 90% x 8,000 hr/yr x $0.06 /kWh = $400 /yr If the compressor shuts off when not generating compressed air (such as would be the case for reciprocating compressors with on/off control or lag compressors with automatic shut-off control, then the savings from fixing this leak would equal the cost to feed the leak of $400 /yr. If the compressor runs unloaded at 60% of full-load power when not generating compressed air, the savings would be about: $400 /yr x 40% = $160 /yr

AR CAS1: Fix Compressed Air Leaks

Annual Savings Resource CO2 (lb) 125 kW 391,000 kWh 900,000 900,000 Dollars $14,000 $12,900 $26,900 Project Cost Simple Payback

Electric Demand Electric Energy Net

$1,350

1 month

Analysis On September 22 and 23, we identified 45 leaks in the compressed air system. The leaks were identified by listening with the unaided ear and with the use of an ultrasonic sensor. Some leaks were so big that we could hear them across the street from the plant. 36 of the leaks were marked with numbered red tags. The remaining leaks could not be tagged since they were located out of reach or on equipment that was in use. Leaks in the compressed air system increase the base load on the compressors and therefore increase compressor energy consumption. Recommendation We strongly recommend fixing the identified leaks as soon as possible before the tags are removed. In addition, we recommend instituting a program to inspect the plant for leaks and fix all identified leaks once per week. To inspect for leaks, we recommend walking through the plant during non-production hours while the compressors are running and listening for leaks. Leaks should be tagged, logged and then fixed as soon as possible. Doing so would ensure that the energy savings identified here persist over time. Estimated Savings We include two ways of estimating the compressed air lost through leaks. Logging Compressor Power With No Production We logged the power draw of the IR XLE 250-hp reciprocating compressor after production had shut down for the day on September 22. According to the logged power data, the average power draw of the XLE compressor over this interval was about 145 kW. Thus, the percent of full-load power (FP) at which the XLE compressor operated on average is about: 145 kW / 205 kW = 70% In the IR XLE 250-hp analysis section above, we show that the relationship between fraction power (FP) and fraction capacity (FC) for this compressor is: FC = (FP 0.0815) / 0.886 Thus, the fraction of rated capacity (FC) at which the compressor operated was about: FC = (0.70 0.0815) / 0.886 = 70%

Thus, the average compressed air output of the XLE compressor when the plant was shutdown was about: 70% x 1,600 scfm = 1,120 scfm During the logged interval, there was no production in the plant. Thus, all of the air being generated by the compressor was supplying air leaks. Therefore, the base load air demand in your plant due to leaks and other unnecessary consumption is about 1,120 scfm. Our analysis of the compressed air system during production hours indicates that the combined average output of the main plant compressors during production hours is about: 560 scfm + 670 scfm + 550 scfm = 1,780 scfm Thus, the percentage of air lost due to leaks in your plant is about: 1,120 scfm / 1,780 scfm = 63% Typically, most plants try to keep air lost through leaks at about 10% of total air use or less. Identifying Leaks and Summing Estimated Losses The rate of compressed air flow through a hole or leak can be calculated using the Moss Equation (Ingersoll-Rand Condensed Air Data, 1988, pp. 96). For example, the rate of compressed air flow Q (scfm) through a 1/8-inch rough-edged (C=0.61) leak at an average plant line pressure of 85 psig is about: Q = 0.5303 x / 4 x [D (in)]2 x C x P (psia) x 60 / [ = 0.4165 x (1/8)2 x 0.61 x (85 + 14.7) psia x 60 / [ = 13.8 scfm/leak
530( R )

x 0.07494 lb/ft3] 530( R ) x 0.07494 lb/ft3]

The results of the air leak inspection are shown in the table below. To calculate the rate of compressed air loss, we used the Moss equation shown above and estimated the size of each leak. In each case, we assumed that the line pressure at the leak is 85 psig and the discharge coefficient is C= 0.61 for a rough-edged hole.

Leak # Tagged 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Total Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 250-hp IR recip comp

Location 250-hp IR recip comp room, bend where hanging hose drops from ceiling 150-hp IR screw comp room, ref dryer 150-hp SA screw comp, filter 150-hp SA screw comp, flange Cleaning area, on "1-ton crane" Cleaning area, grinder air supply, air filter/trap Cleaning area grinder air supply, air filter/trap Cleaning area, helmet air supply Cleaning area, north pillar Cleaning area, north grinder Door to maintenance shop, valve Central pillar near arc furnace, valve East pillar near arc furnace, valve East pillar near ladle storage, filter/trap East pillar near ladle storage, filter/trap Central pillar near 1250 Sand Mold machine Central pillar near 1250 Sand Mold machine Central pillar near 1250 Sand Mold machine Thermfire, filter/trap Thermfire, filter/trap Green Sand Mold #1, hand valve Green Sand Mold #1, high air piston Green Sand Mold #1, central pillar Green Sand Mold #3, air gun near central pillar Green Sand Mold #2, hose near floor Green Sand Mold #3, valve near floor Green Sand Mold #1, valve near top Green Sand Mold #4, valve near top Green Sand Mold #5, hose coupling Green Sand Mold #5, hose near top Green Sand Mold #6, hose near bottom Green Sand Mold #6, hose near top Green Sand Mold #9, hose coupling Green Sand Mold #9, hose coupling Green Sand Mold #10, hose coupling Green Sand Mold #10, filter/trap Green Sand Mold #10, filter/trap Air Set Machine, filter/trap Core room, hose coupling Core room, pneumatic tool Core room, hose coupling Core room, pneumatic tool Core room, hose coupling Cleaning area, east side, hose coupling

Dia. (in) Loss (scfm) 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.188 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.188 0.063 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.188 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 13.8 13.8 3.4 13.8 13.8 31.0 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 3.4 13.8 13.8 3.4 3.4 13.8 13.8 3.4 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 31.0 3.4 13.8 3.4 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 31.0 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 599

Calculating Savings Based on the previous results, we estimate that between about 600 scfm and 1,100 scfm of compressed air is lost through leaks. The savings estimated below assume the most conservative figure; however, the actual savings from instituting an aggressive leak reduction program could be about twice the savings estimated below. Using the most conservative estimate, fixing leaks could reduce the compressed air demand by about 600 scfm. The rated capacity of the new 150-hp Ingersoll-Rand screw compressor is about 670 scfm. This suggests that if compressed air leaks were regularly identified and fixed and the 150-hp Ingersoll-Rand screw compressor were set to operate as the lag compressor, the compressor would seldom turn on. Assuming the air compressor motor is 90% efficient, the savings would be about: 150 hp x 0.75 kW/hp / 90% = 125 kW 125 kW x $9.34 /kW-month x 12 months/year = $14,000 /year According to management, the compressors operate about 12.5 hours per day, 5 days per week for 50 weeks per year. If so, the electrical energy savings would be about: 125 kW x 12.5 hours/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 391,000 kWh/year 391,000 kWh/year x $0.033 /kWh = $12,900 /year The total energy savings would be about: $14,000 /year + $12,900 /year = $26,900 /year This would reduce CO2 emissions by the electric utility by about: 391,000 kWh/year x 2.3 lb CO2/kWh = 900,000 lb CO2 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost At an average of $30 per leak, the cost to repair all of the leaks would be about: $30 /leak x 45 leaks = $1,350 Estimated Simple Payback ($1,350 / $26,900 /year) x 12 months/year = 1 month

AR 696: Fix Compressed Air Leaks

ARC: 2.4231.2 Electrical Demand Electrical Energy Total Annual Savings Resource CO2 (lb) Dollars 6 kW $1,135 36,000 kWh $756 82,600 $1,891 Project Cost Capital Other Total Simple Payback

$300

$300

$600

4 months

Analysis During our plant visit, we identified about 20 leaks in the compressed air system with the use of an ultrasonic sensor. We marked many of the leaks with orange tags. We did not mark some of the leaks in the connections to pneumatic hand tools in the finishing area, since the tools were in use. In addition, we logged the power draw of the compressor throughout the day, including during breaks. During breaks, the only production-related compressed air use was by the four dust-collectors. Thus, the balance of the compressed air generated by the compressor during breaks is lost to leaks. Leaks in the compressed air system increase the base load on the compressors and therefore increase compressor energy consumption. Recommendation We recommend fixing the identified leaks as soon as possible before the tags are removed. In addition, we recommend instituting a program to inspect the plant for leaks and fix all identified leaks once per week. To inspect for leaks, we recommend walking through the plant during non-production hours while the compressors are running and listening for leaks. Leaks should be tagged, logged and then fixed as soon as possible. Doing so would ensure that the energy savings identified here persist over time. Estimated Savings Two methods of estimating the compressed air lost through leaks are shown below. Estimating Compressed Air Lost Through Leaks By Summing Individual Leaks The pressure of compressed air supplied to the plant was maintained at 100 psig by a flow controller. We estimate that the compressed air pressure drops by 10 psig as the air travels through the supply pipes and hoses to the leaks. The leaks we identified varied in size. We estimate that the average diameter of a leak was 1/16 inch. The rate of compressed air flow through a hole or leak can be calculated using the Moss Equation (Ingersoll-Rand Condensed Air Data, 1988, pp. 96). Using this equation, the rate of compressed air flow Q (scfm) through a 1/16-inch rough-edged (C=0.61) leak at an average plant line pressure of 90 psig is about: Q = 0.5303 x / 4 x [D (in)]2 x C x P (psia) x 60 / [ 530( R ) x 0.07494 lb/ft3] = 0.4165 x (1/16)2 x 0.61 x (90 + 14.7) psia x 60 / [ 530( R ) x 0.07494 lb/ft3]

= 3.6 scfm/leak Thus, the total compressed air demand from the 20 identified leaks is about: 3.6 scfm/leak x 20 leaks = 72 scfm Estimating Compressed Air Lost Through Leaks By Logging Compressor Power We logged the power draw of the 150-hp Kaeser screw compressor from about 9:00 am to about 3:00 pm. The graph of the power draw, measured in one-minute intervals, is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 clearly shows the difference in compressor power consumption during production and during breaks. For example, the average power draw during production from 9:00 to 10:15 was 105 kW. The average power draw during the break from 10:15 to 11:45 was 88 kW. The average power draw during the entire day, including both production and breaks was 95 kW.
120 100 Power (kW) 80 60 40 20 0 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

Figure 1. Air compressor power draw measured at one-minute time intervals. To maintain the compressed air pressure between the pressure set-points, the compressor alternately loads and unloads. The load/unload pattern is evident in the power spikes shown in Figure 1 during production. When loaded, the compressor motor draws about 105% of rated power and produces about 4.2 scfm of compressed air per horsepower of work supplied to the compressor screws. When unloaded, the compressor still draws a substantial amount of power, but adds no compressed air to the system. From Figure 1, the peak loaded power appears to be about 118 kW. However, the compressor was cycling between loaded and unloaded conditions faster than once per minute; thus, the peak loaded power is actually higher than the 118 kW shown in Figure 1. To generate a better estimate of peak loaded power, we assume the 150-hp motor draws 105% of rated power when loaded and is 90% efficient. If so, the full-load power (FLP) and full-load compressed air output (FLO) are about: FLP = 150 hp x 0.75 kW/hp x 105% / 90% = 131 kW FLO = 150 hp x 4.2 scfm/hp x 105% = 662 scfm

The no-load power (NLP) can be estimated from Figure 1 as the minimum power during break, when the load was so low that the compressor did not cycle more than once per minute. The no-load compressed air output (NPO) is, of course, zero. NLP = 75 kW NLO = 0 scfm Using, these numbers, the fraction loaded (FL) of the compressor can be calculated from the measured power draw (P) as: FL = (P NLP) / (FLP NLP) FLprod = (105 kW 75 kW) / (131 kW 75 kW) = 54% FLbreak = (88 kW 75 kW) / (131 kW 75 kW) = 23% FLavg = (95 kW 75 kW) / (131 kW 75 kW) = 36% And the compressed air output (CAO) can be calculated as CAO = FLO x FL CAOprod = 662 scfm x 54% = 357 scfm CAObreak = 662 scfm x 23% = 152 scfm CAOavg = 662 scfm x 36% = 238 scfm Assuming that half of the compressed air generated during break was consumed by the four dust collectors, the compressed air lost to leaks was about: 50% x 152 scfm = 76 scfm Note, that this estimate of compressed air lost through leaks is very close to our alternative estimate of 72 scfm made by summing individual leaks. Using this estimate, the percentage of air lost due to leaks in your plant is about: 76 scfm / 357 scfm = 21% It is good practice to keep air lost through leaks at 10% of total air use or less. Estimated Savings Using our most conservative result from above, we estimate that 72 scfm of compressed air is lost through leaks. If the leaks were fixed, average compressed air output (CAO) would be reduced to about: 238 scfm 72 scfm = 166 scfm Following the same procedure used above, the average fraction loaded (FL) would be about:

FL = CAO / FLO FLavg = 166 scfm / 662 scfm = 25% And the power draw of the compressor would be about: P = FL x (FLP NLP) + NLP Pavg = 25% x (131 kW 75 kW) + 75 kW = 89 kW Thus, the electricity savings would be about: 95 kW - 89 kW = 6 kW 6 kW x $15.77 /kW-month x 12 months/year = $1,135 /year 6 kW x 20 hours/day x 6 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 36,000 kWh/year 36,000 kWh/year x $0.021 /kWh = $756 /year $1,135 /year + $756 /year = $1,891 /year This would reduce CO2 emissions by the electric utility by about: 36,000 kWh/year x 2.3 lb CO2/kWh = 82,800 lb CO2 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost At an average of $15 in labor and $15 in materials per leak, the cost to repair the identified leaks would be about: Labor: $15 /leak x 20 leaks = $300 Materials: $15 /leak x 20 leaks = $300 Total: $300 + $300 = $600 Estimated Simple Payback ($600 / $1,891 /year) x 12 months/year = 4 months

AR X: Fix Compressed Air Leaks

Annual Savings Resource CO2 (lb) 346,800 kWh 800,000 Dollars $23,200 Project Cost $900 Simple Payback 1 month Investment IRR 2,000 %

Electricity

Analysis On September 25, we identified 18 leaks in the compressed air system. The leaks were identified by listening with the unaided ear and with the use of an ultrasonic inspection gun from UE Systems (www.uesystems.com). 13 of the leaks were marked with numbered red tags. The remaining leaks could not be tagged since they were located out of reach or on equipment that was in use. Although we were able to conduct the leak inspection throughout much of the plant, we did not inspect for leaks in areas where our safety may have been compromised due to our unfamiliarity with the equipment. Thus, we believe that some additional leaks may also exist. Leaks in the compressed air system increase the base load on the compressors and therefore increase compressor energy consumption. Recommendation We recommend fixing the identified leaks as soon as possible before the tags are removed. In addition, we recommend instituting a program to inspect the plant for leaks and fix all identified leaks once per week. To inspect for leaks, we recommend walking through the plant during non-production hours while the compressors are running and listening for leaks. Leaks should be tagged, logged and then fixed as soon as possible. Doing so would ensure that the energy savings identified here persist over time. In addition, to maximize electricity savings, we recommend staging the compressors to activate at sequentially lower pressures and enabling the control that turns the compressors off if they run unloaded for 10 minutes (See AR#X). Estimated Savings The rate of compressed air flow through a hole or leak can be calculated using the Moss Equation (Ingersoll-Rand Condensed Air Data, 1988, pp. 96). For example, the rate of compressed air flow, Q (scfm), through a 1/8-inch rough-edged (C=0.61) leak at an average plant line pressure of 85 psig is about: Q = 0.5303 x / 4 x [D (in)]2 x C x P (psia) x 60 / [ = 0.4165 x (1/8)2 x 0.61 x (85 + 14.7) psia x 60 / [ = 13.8 scfm/leak
530( R ) 530( R )

x 0.07494 lb/ft3] x 0.07494 lb/ft3]

The results of the air leak inspection are shown in the table below. To calculate the rate of compressed air loss, we used the Moss equation shown above and estimated the size of each leak. In each case, we assumed that the line pressure at the leak is 85 psig and the discharge coefficient is C= 0.61 for a rough-edged hole. These results indicate that fixing these leaks would reduce the compressed air demand by about 258 scfm.

Leak # Tagged 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes

Location AMP 72, operator's platform, workbench, hose coupling AMP 72, operator's platform, pipe coupling AMP 73, filter/lubricator AMP 73, tool area under workbench, filter/lubricator SPC #4, filter/lubricator SPC #4, filter/lubricator AMP 74, hose AMP 74, hose coupling AMP 74, pipe AMP 74, coupling to pneumatic wrench AMP 75, on floor, pipe joint AMP 75, platform tool area, hose coupling AMP 75, power supply mezzanine, pipe joint over edge of mezzanine RR2 machine, hose near "RR2" sign Kurimoto press, underneath machine, filter/lubricator SMG Schuler press, pneumatic cylinder on rear of machine AMP 30, operators platform, filter/lubricator Between AMP 72&73 near floor, pipe coupling (Bryn found this one)

Dia. (in) Loss (scfm) 0.063 0.125 0.063 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.188 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.188 0.188 0.125 0.125 3.4 13.8 3.4 3.4 13.8 13.8 31.0 13.8 13.8 3.4 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 31.0 31.0 13.8 13.8 258

The electricity savings resulting from reducing compressed air demand is highly dependent on the control mode of the compressors. Staging the compressors to activate at sequentially lower pressures and enabling the control that turns the compressors off if they run unloaded for 10 minutes, as recommended in AR # X, will result in the maximum electricity savings. In the analysis that follows, we assume that these measures will be implemented. If not, the savings from fixing the leaks would be about 60% less than the estimate below since the compressors will continue to run unloaded even with reduced compressed air demand. According to management, the compressors operate about 136 hours per week for 50 weeks per year. Most compressors generate about 4.2 scfm per brake horsepower. Assuming the compressor motors are 90% efficient and the measures recommended above are activated, the savings from fixing these leaks would be about: 258 scfm / 4.2 scfm/hp x 0.75 kW/hp / 90% = 51 kW 51 kW x 136 hours/week x 50 weeks/year = 346,800 kWh/year 346,800 kWh/year x $0.067 /kWh = $23,200 /year This would reduce CO2 emissions by the electric utility by about: 346,800 kWh/year x 2.3 lb CO2/kWh = 800,000 lb CO2 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost At an average of $50 per leak, the cost to repair all of the leaks would be about:

$50 /leak x 18 leaks = $900 Estimated Simple Payback ($900 / $23,200 /year) x 12 months/year = 1 month

AR 3154: Fix Air Leaks and Purchase 100-hp Air Compressor

Annual Savings Resource CO2 (lb) 92.6 kW 513,120 kWh 969,830 Dollars $15,590 $10,775 $26,365 Project Cost Simple Payback

Elec. Demand Elec. Use Net

$31,000

14 months

Analysis The plant uses two 200-hp air-cooled screw compressors that can generate an enormous 1,600 scfm of compressed air. Both compressors are set to maintain line pressure of about 95 psig. According the maintenance director, the foundry and cleaning room compressors run about 24 and 8 hours per day respectively. On the day of our visit, the foundry compressor was drawing about 130 kW. Thus, the operation of these two compressors comprises a significant portion of the plant's electrical demand. Decreasing compressor demand could reduce electricity costs or free electricity for the processcritical melting operation, resulting in increased productivity. To see if this is possible our first question is always: how much air is actually needed? We were unable to identify anywhere close to 1,600 scfm of compressed air requirements in the plant. Thus, we are skeptical that the entire capacity of both compressors is actually needed. This skepticism was increased when we measured the power draw to the foundry compressor and found that it was about 83% loaded. Although this may give the impression that the plant was demanding significant amounts of compressed air, the opposite is probably true. This is because screw compressors, when unloaded, continue to spin while bleeding air through by-pass valves rather than compressing it. As a result, they typically draw 70% of full-load power even when unloaded. Thus, the demand for air in the plant was probably quite low when we measured the power draw. In fact, the large leaks we identified (which required about 16 hp of compressor power) were probably the biggest consumers of air in the plant at that time. Based on these observations, we propose the following strategy to reduce compressor operating costs. Recommendation Leaks are expensive! We estimate that the leaks we identified generate over $4,000 per year in excess energy costs plus unnecessary wear and tear on the compressors. An easy way to identify leaks is to let the air compressor run after production has stopped and listen for hissing sounds. We recommend that this be done at least once per week as part of an aggressive, management-backed program to eliminate leaks. Next, we recommend renting a 100-hp screw-compressor to see if it can carry the load during the 16 hours per day when you currently run one 200-hp compressor. During the remaining 8 hours per day, you should run both the 100-hp and one of the 200-hp compressors. If the 100-hp compressor is able to meet the plant air requirements in place of the 200-hp compressor, you should purchase it and continue to use it in this manner.

The 200-hp compressors could then be rotated to ensure even wear and tear and ensure that a backup compressor is available if needed. Estimated Savings Repairing Leaks During our visit, we identified numerous, large leaks in the compressed air system. The leaks listed below were in the cleaning room and near the foundry compressor (see Table below). To estimate the energy wasted by these leaks, we estimated the effective diameter of each leak and assumed that your compressor generates about 4 scfm per brake horsepower (Compressed Air Systems, DOE/CS/40520-T2). Size of Hole 1 /8 Total # holes 4 Scfm/hole 15.86 scfm lost 63.44 63.44 hp lost 15.86 15.86

Assuming the 200-hp compressor motors are 93.6% efficient, the power and energy required to supply air to these leaks is about: 15.86 hp x 0.746 kW/hp / 93.6% = 12.6 kW 12.6 kW x $14.03 kW/ month x 12 month/year = $2,121 /year 12.6 kW x 24 hour/day x 6 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 90,720 kWh/year 90,720 kWh/year x $0.021 /kWh = $1,905 /year $2,121 /year + $1,905 /year = $4,026 /year This means that if these leaks were regularly fixed, you could reduce the target demand by about 13 kW during both on and off-peak periods while maintaining the same melting capacity and saving about $4,000 per year. To estimate savings from running a 100-hp compressor in place of a 200-hp compressor, we estimate that, on average, the plant requires about 300 scfm of air for 16 hours per day and 1000 scfm for 8 hours per day. This would require an average of 75 hp of compressor power for 16 hours per day and 250 hp of compressor power for 8 hours per day. In addition, we estimate that the old 200-hp compressors require 70% of full load power even when unloaded, and that a new 100-hp screw compressor with better controls would only require about 60% of full load power. Finally, we assume that the efficiency of all motors is 93.6%. Current Based on these assumptions, for 16 hours per day, the current 200-hp is fully loaded for about: 75 hp / 200 hp = 37.5% of the time. The remaining 62.5% of the time it runs unloaded at 70% of full-load power. Thus, the average power draw of the current 200-hp compressor during the 16 hours per day when it runs alone is about:

[(200 hp x 37.5%) + (200 hp x 70% x 62.5%)] x .746 kW/hp / 93.6% = 130 kW 139 kW x 16 hours/day = 2,080 kWh/day For 8 hours per day, one 200-hp compressor is fully loaded. The other is loaded for about: 050 hp / 200hp = 25% of the time and unloaded for the remaining 75% of the time. Thus, the average power draw of the current 200-hp compressors during the 8 hours per day when they both run is about: [(200 hp) + (200 hp x 25%) + (200 hp x 70% x 75%)] x .746 kW/hp / 93.6% = 283 kW 283 kW x 8 hours/day = 2,264 kWh/day The total electricity consumption is about: 2,080 kWh/day + 2,264 kWh/day = 4,344 kWh/day Proposed If a 100-hp compressor were used in place of the 200-hp compressor for 16 hours per day, the 100-hp compressor would be fully loaded for about: 75 hp / 100 hp = 75% of the time. The remaining 25% of the time it would run unloaded at 60% of full-load power. Thus, the average power draw of the current 100-hp compressor during the 16 hours per day when it would run alone would be about: [(100 hp x 75%) + (100 hp x 60% x 25%)] x .746 kW/hp / 93.6% = 72 kW 72 kW x 16 hours/day = 1,152 kWh/day For 8 hours per day, one 200-hp compressor would still be fully loaded. The 100-hp compressor would be loaded for about 50 hp/100hp = 50% of the time and unloaded for the remaining 50% of the time. Thus, the average power draw during the 8 hours per day when they both run would be about: [(200 hp) + (100 hp x 50%) + (100 hp x 60% x 50%)] x .746 kW/hp / 93.6% = 223 kW 223 kW x 8 hours/day = 1,748 kWh/day The total electricity consumption would be about: 1,152 kWh/day + 1,748 kWh/day = 2,936 kWh/day Net Savings

The net electricity consumption savings would be about: (4,344 kWh/day - 2,936 kWh/day) x 6 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 422,400 kWh/yr 422,400 kWh/yr x $0.021 /kWh = $8,870 /yr In addition, this would allow you to reduce the target demands and save about: 100 hp x 0.746 kW/hp / 93.6% = 80 kW 80 kW x $14.03 /kW-month x 12 months/year = $13,469 /year The total savings, including fixing leaks, would be about: $4,026 /year + $8,870 /year + $13,469 /year = $26,365 /year Estimated Implementation Cost A new 100-hp compressor would cost about $30,000 plus another $1,000 in installation costs. Estimated Simple Payback Simple payback = $31,000 initial cost / $26,365 /yr savings x 12 months/year = 14 months

AR x: Fix Air Leaks, Lower Discharge Pressure and Downsize Compressor

Elec. Demand Elec. Usage Net Implementation Cost Simple Payback Present 38.14 kW 85,815 kWh/yr Recommended 22.80 kW 51,300 kWh Annual Savings 15.34 kW; $2,229 34,515 kWh; $1,104 $3,333 $9,720 35 months

Analysis A 50-hp air-cooled screw compressor supplies compressed air to the facility. We measured the cycle-time of the compressor to be 160 seconds, of which it was loaded for only about 40 seconds (or 25% of the time). In addition, the compressor recorder showed that it was loaded only 17% of the total run time. These observations indicate that the compressor is significantly oversized. This causes the compressor to run inefficiently because it draws about 50% of full-load current even when unloaded. In addition the system discharge pressure is set at 115 psig, which is higher than needed to maintain a pressure of 95 - 105 psig for the air-powered tools and machinery. Finally there are many leaks in the compressed air lines. Recommendations We recommend renting a 30-hp air-cooled screw compressor to see if it will carry the load. If so the 30-hp compressor would deliver the required compressed air at substantial energy savings. We also recommend lowering the discharge pressure to 100 psig. This would save energy costs and reduce wear-and-tear on the pneumatic equipment. We also recommend implementing a regular leak repair program. Estimated Savings We measured the current draw of the compressor when loaded and unloaded. Assuming that the power factor of the motor is 95% and that the motor is loaded an average of 20% of the time, the current electricity usage is about: Loaded
65 Amps 480 V 3 .95 = 51.4 kW 1000

Unloaded
30 Amps 480 V 3 .95 = 23.7 kW 1000

Average (20% x 51.4 kW) + (80% x 23.7 kW) = 29.2 kW 29.2 kW x 2,250 hours/year = 65,700 kWh/year

We estimate that a 30-hp screw compressor would operate at an average 90% motor load and that the motor would be 88.5% efficient. If so, the electricity usage would be about: 30 hp x 90% x 0.746 kW/hp x 1/88.5% = 22.8 kW 22.8 kW x 2,250 hours/year = 51,300 kWh/year The energy savings from using the 30-hp compressor would be about: 29.2 kW 22.8 kW = 6.4 kW 6.4 kW x $12.11 kW/mo x 12 mo/yr = $930 /year 65,700 kWh/year 51,300 kWh/year = 14,400 kWh/year 14,400 kWh/year x $0.032 /kWh = $461 /year The cost penalty for operating at a high discharge pressure is found using the fraction of savings for operating at a low discharge pressure, P2l, rather than a high discharge pressure, P2h, when the inlet air pressure is P1 is about: Frac Savings = (P2h /P1 ) 0.286 (P2l /P1 ) 0.286 (P2h /P1 ) 0.286 1

It the pressure were reduced from 115 psig to 100 psig, the pressure ratios would be about: (P2h/Pl)0.286 = [(115 psi + 14.7 psi) / 14.7 psi]0.286 = 1.864 (P2l/Pl)0.286 = [(100 psi + 14.7 psi) / 14.7 psi]0.286 = 1.799 The fraction of savings would be about:
Frac Savings = 1.864 1.799 = 8.14% 1.799 1

Thus, the demand and energy savings from operating at 100-psig-discharge pressure instead of at 115 psig would be about: 29.2 kW x 8.14% = 2.38 kW 2.38 kW x $12.11 kW/month x 12 month/year = $346 /year 2.38 kW x 2,250 hour/year = 5,355 kWh/year 5,355 kWh/year x $0.032 /kWh = $171 /year We observed 8 leaks of various sizes (see table below). To estimate the energy wasted from each leak, we estimated the air flow lost through each leak and estimated that your screw air compressor generates about 4 scfm per brake horsepower (Compressed Air Systems, DOE/CS/40520-T2).

Size of Hole 1 /8 1 /16 1 /32 Total

# holes 1 3 4 8

scfm/hole 15.86 3.96 0.99

scfm lost 15.86 11.88 3.96 31.7

hp lost 3.97 2.97 0.99 7.93

Assuming the 50-hp compressor is 90.2% efficient, the power required to supply air to these leaks is about: 7.93 hp x 0.746 kW/hp / 90.2% = 6.56 kW 6.56 kW x $12.11 kW/ month x 12 month/year = $953 /year 6.56 kW x 2,250 hour/year = 14,760 kWh/year 14,760 kWh/year x $0.032 /kWh = $472 /year The total savings would be about: Compressor conversion savings: Lower Discharge Pressure savings: Hole fixing savings: Total Savings: $930 /year + $461 /year = $1,391 /year $346 /year + $171 /year = $517 /year $953 /year + $472 /year = $1,425 /year $3,333 /year

There would also be savings from lengthening the lifetime of the pneumatic tools. Estimated Implementation Cost Product literature (see for example: Grainger, 1997) advertises 30-hp rotary screw compressors for less than $9,000. We estimate that it would take about 20 man-hours at $31 per hour labor cost, plus about $100 in materials to fix the leaks. The total cost of implementation would be about $9,720. Estimated Simple Payback SP = $9,720 / $3,333 /year x 12 mo/yr = 35 months

AR 3204: Fix Air Leaks and Baseload 40-hp Compressor

Electric Demand Electric Use Net Annual Savings Resource CO2 (lb) 71 kW 521,424 kWh 1,199,275 Dollars $12,022 $10,950 $22,972 Project Cost Simple Payback

$148

< 1 month

Analysis A 100-hp air-cooled screw compressor supplies compressed air to the facility. We observed that the compressor was loaded for only 15 out of every 85 seconds, which is less than 20% of the time. In addition, we observed a few leaks in the compressed air lines. Thus, some of the work done by the compressor is simply to supply air to the leaks. These observations indicate that the compressor is significantly over sized. With screw compressors, you pay a terrible penalty for over-sizing since your compressor draws about 85% of full load power even when it is unloaded (which is 80% of the time)! Fortunately, you already own a more appropriately sized 40-hp compressor. Recommendations First, we recommend finding and repairing all leaks on a regular basis. This will minimize end-use demand and result in substantial energy savings over time. It will also reduce wear and tear on your compressors and lengthen their lives. Next, we recommend using your 40-hp compressor as the base-loaded unit by setting the activation pressure equal to the desired line pressure. Use the 100-hp compressor as the backup compressor by setting the activation pressure about 5 psig less than the 40-hp compressor and running it in automatic mode. This would cause the 100-hp compressor to cycle on only during rare compressed air demand spikes. Estimated Savings We measured the current draw of the compressor when loaded and unloaded. Assuming that the power factor of the motor is 95%, the motor efficiency is 92%, and that the motor is loaded an average of 20% of the time, the current electricity use is about:
130 Amps 480 Volts 3 95 % kW/kVA / 92% = 111.6 kW loaded 1000 VA /kVA 110 Amps 480 Volts 3 95 % kW/kVA / 92% = 94.4 kW unloaded 1000 VA /kVA

Operating hours for this unit are about: 24 hr/dy x 6 dy/wk x 51 wk/yr = 7,344 hr/yr Thus, the average electricity use of the compressor is about:

(20% x 111.6 kW) + (80% x 94.4 kW) = 97.8 kW 97.8 kW x 7,344 hours/year = 718,243 kWh/year Assuming that your air compressors generate about 4 scfm per brake horsepower (Compressed Air Systems, DOE/CS/40520-T2), we estimate the current plant compressed air requirement to be about: 100 hp x 4 scfm/hp x 20% usage = 80 scfm The capacity of the 40-hp unit is about: 40 hp x 4 scfm/hp = 160 scfm Thus, we believe that the 40-hp unit could easily carry the load. The average loading of the 40-hp compressor would be about: 80 scfm required / 160 scfm supply capacity = 50% Assuming that the 40-hp motor is 89% efficient and draws 60% of full-load power when unloaded, the electricity use would be about: [(40 hp x 50%) + (40 hp x 50% x 60%)] x 0.746 kW/hp / 89% = 26.8 kW 26.8 kW x 7,344 hours/year = 196,819 kWh/year The energy and cost savings from using the 40-hp compressor would be about: 97.8 kW 26.8 kW = 71 kW 71 kW x $14.11 kW/mo x 12 mo/yr = $12,022 /year 718,243 kWh/year 196,819 kWh/year = 521,424 kWh/year 521,424 kWh/year x $0.021 /kWh = $10,950 /year Total savings would be about: $12,022 /year + $10,950 /year = $22,972 /year. Estimated Implementation Cost We estimate that resetting the activation pressures for two compressors would take about 4 man-hours at $12 per hour labor cost. Since the 40-hp unit has not been run for some time, we estimate that about $100 in materials may be needed. The total cost of implementation would be about $148. Estimated Simple Payback
Simple Payback = $148 / $22,972 months x 12 = less than 1 month year year

AR x:Fix Leaks, Install an Accumulator Tank, and Lower Discharge Pressure

Present Recommended Annual Savings Electric Usage (kWh) 151,200 kWh/yr 131,500 kWh/yr 19,700 kWh; $630 Estimated Implementation Cost: $100 Simple Payback: 2 months Analysis Compressed air is provided by a 25-hp air-cooled rotary air compressor. According to the maintenance staff, it is usually kept on 24 hours a day. In addition, a small (about 5hp) air compressor and storage tank are located next to the rotary compressor for emergency operation. The supply of compressed air is crucial for plant operation. The operation of a large extruder next door could be interrupted if the compressed air supply was cut off. This would lead to significant loss of production and a large start-up cost (about 100 pounds of pellets worth $200 per start). The discharge pressure is set at 120 psig even though the machines only require 90 psig. According to maintenance personnel, the high pressure is needed to provide air to the extruder machine when it a bubble is being blown. When the air pressure was set higher than the needed, it leads to three adverse affects: (1) higher electricity usage, (2) more loss through leaks, and (3) shortened tool and compressor life. Recommendations The assessment team noticed many large air leaks. They should be fixed as soon as possible as a line item under maintenance budget. In addition, the discharge pressure could be lowered if an accumulator tank were installed near the extruder machine. This would provide the air needed during the bubble blowing process and keep other pneumatic tools operable. The maintenance person suggested that an appropriate tank is already available and could be installed for under $100. With these improvements, the compressor discharge pressure could be lowered to 95 psig. We estimate that this will reduce electricity usage by about 13% (10% if lowered to 100 psig and 15% if lowered to 90 psig). Estimated Savings It is assumed that the rotary air compressor is operated at 95% of full motor load (due to leaks and the 120-psig pressure setting) for 84 hours/week (2-shift operation), and at 75% of full motor load for the other 84 hours. The average motor load is about then about 85%. Assume that the motor is 88% efficient, the compressor electricity usage is about: 25 hp x 85% x 0.746 kW/hp x 1/88% = 18 kW (peaks 21 kW) 18 kW x 8,400 hours/year = 151,200 kWh/year (almost 25% of total plant electricity!) We estimate that this will reduce electricity usage by about 13% (10% if lowered to 100 psig and 15% if lowered to 90 psig). Electricity savings would be about: 13% x 151,200 kWh/year = 19,700 kWh/yr

19,700 kWh/yr x $0.032 /kWh = $630 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost $100 Simple Payback SP = $100 / $630 /yr x 12 mo/yr = 2 months

AR 3054: Fix Leaks and Purchase 25-hp Compressor

Elec. Demand Elec. Usage Net Implementation Cost Simple Payback Present 36 kW 91,350 kWh/yr Recommended 16.3 kW 38,250 kWh Annual Savings 25.7; $4,352 57,825 kWh; $1,214 $5,566 $8,140 18 months

Analysis During the assessment, we discovered a few leaks in the compressed air lines. Most leaks occur in connections near the end using machines. Compressed air leaks are expensive, causing excess energy use and wear-and-tear on the compressor. A 50-hp air-cooled screw compressor supplies compressed air to the facility. We measured the cycle-time of the compressor and found that it was loaded for 10 seconds and unloaded for 35 seconds. Thus, the compressor was loaded about 25% of the time. In addition, the plants compressed air end-uses appeared to be minimal. These observations indicate that the compressor is significantly oversized. Unfortunately, screw compressors, such as yours, still consume lots of energy even when unloaded; our measurements indicate that your compressor draws about 63% of full-load current even when unloaded! Thus, the operation of this over-sized compressor is very costly. The part-load efficiency of compressors varies widely with compressor type. Screw compressors are efficient and quiet when fully loaded but have terrible part-load efficiencies. When unloaded, they continue to spin while bleeding air through by-pass valves rather than compressing it. As a result, they usually draw over 60% of full-load power even when unloaded. Reciprocating compressors, on the other hand, shut down completely when unloaded. For this reason, we often recommend installing reciprocating compressors at sites, such as your facility, that do not have large and continuous compressed air requirements. Recommendations Leaks are expensive! We estimate that the leaks we identified generate over $1,000 per year in excess energy costs plus unnecessary wear and tear on the compressor. An easy way to identify leaks is to let the air compressor run after production has stopped for the day, and listen for hissing sounds. We recommend that this done at least once per week. We also recommend renting a 25-hp air-cooled reciprocating compressor to see if it will carry the load. If so, the 25-hp compressor would deliver the required compressed air at substantial energy savings. The current 50-hp compressor could then be set to activate at 5 psi below the 25-hp compressor. Hence it would run only during periods of peak demand, if at all, and its automatic control would shut it off the rest of the time.

Estimated Savings During full production in the plant (with the exception of painting), the compressor was loaded about 25% of the time. Assuming that these conditions are representative of the average and that the power factor of the motor is 84%, the current electricity usage is about: Loaded (71 Amps x 480 Volts x 1.732 x 0.84 kW/kVA) / (1000 V/kV) = 49.6 kW Unloaded (45 Amps x 480 Volts x 1.732 x 0.84 kW/kVA) / (1000 V/kV) = 31.4 kW Average (25% x 49.6 kW) + (75% x 31.4 kW) = 36 kW Note that the compressor draws about 31.4 kW / 49.6 kW = 63% of full load power even when it was not supplying compressed air to your system. Plant operating hours are: 9 hours/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 2,250 hours/year Thus, energy consumption is about: 36 kW x 2,250 hours/year = 81,000 kWh/year However, much of this electricity is wasted while the compressor is unloaded. If the motor efficiency is 90%, the actual average power requirement to compress air is about: 49.6 kW x 25% / (0.746 kW/hp x 90%) = 18.5 hp Thus, a 25-hp reciprocating compressor would be sufficient to carry the load. The fraction of the time that a 25-hp compressor would be loaded is about: 18.5 hp / 25 hp capacity = 74% Electrical usage would be about: 25 hp x 74% x 0.746 kW/hp / 90% efficiency = 15 kW 15 kW x 2,250 hours/year = 33,750 kWh/year The cost savings from using the 25-hp compressor would be about: 36 kW 15 kW = 21 kW 21 kW x $14.11 kW/mo x 12 mo/yr = $3,556 /year 81,000 kWh/year 33,750 kWh/year = 47,250 kWh/year 47,250 kWh/year x $0.021 /kWh = $992 /year

Leak Repair We identified 5 leaks and estimated the effective size of each leak as shown in the table below. We then estimated the standard cfm lost through each hole and the compressor work required by the leaks using the reference: "Compressed Air Systems" DOE/CS/40520-T2. Size of Hole 1 /8 1 /16 1 /32 Total # holes 1 1 3 5 scfm/hole 15.86 3.96 0.99 Scfm lost 15.86 3.96 2.97 22.79 hp lost 3.97 0.99 0.74 5.7

Assuming the 50-hp compressor motor is 90% efficient, the cost of supplying air to these leaks is about: 5.7 hp x 0.746 kW/hp / 90% = 4.7 kW 4.7 kW x $14.11 kW/ month x 12 month/year = $796 /year 4.7 kW x 2,250 hour/year = 10,575 kWh/year 10,575 kWh/year x $0.021 /kWh = $222 /year The total savings would be about: Compressor conversion savings: Leak repair savings: Total Savings: $3,556 /year + $992 /year = $4,548 /year $796 /year + $222 /year = $1,018 /year $4,458 + $1,018 = $5,566 /year

Estimated Implementation Cost Local equipment distributors quote about $7,000 for a 25-hp, air-cooled, reciprocating compressor. We estimate that it would take about 40 labor hours at $21 per hour labor cost, plus about $300 in materials to install the 25-hp compressor and repair the leaks. The total cost of implementation would be about $8,140. Estimated Simple Payback Simple Payback = $8,140 / $5,566 /year x 12 mo/yr = 18 months

AR 3254: Fix Air Leaks And Use Your 150-hp Air Compressor
Electric Demand Electric Use Net Annual Savings Resource CO2 (lb) 15 kW 299,520 kWh 648,161 Dollars $1,892 $6,290 $8,182 Project Cost Simple Payback

$1,200

2 months

Analysis Compressed air is currently supplied to the plant by a 250-hp air-cooled screw compressor. It runs 24 hours per day, 5 days per week, regardless of the compressed air requirements. 150-hp and 200-hp units are also available. According to maintenance personnel, the compressed air load drops significantly on third shift. Unfortunately, the 250-hp compressor consumes about 2/3 of full load power even when unloaded. Thus, running the 250-hp compressor during third shift results in excessive electricity use. In addition, we identified several leaks in your plant. Based on these observations, we propose the following strategy to reduce air compressor operating costs without impacting production. Recommendation According to maintenance personnel, the compressed air load drops significantly on third shift, and the smallest compressor could likely handle the load. We recommend shutting down the 250-hp unit and using only your 150-hp unit on third shift. As a backup measure, you can set the activation pressure of the 200-hp reciprocating compressor to the lowest tolerable plant pressure, and allowing it to run in automatic-unload mode. If system pressure drops to this value, the 200-hp reciprocating unit would supply the system shortfall more economically than the larger 250-hp screw compressor. When we discussed compressed air leaks, your maintenance associate reported, It just hisses when nobody is here! We recommend locating and repairing leaks on regular basis. An easy way to identify leaks is to let the air compressor run after production has stopped and listen for hissing sounds. We recommend that this be done at least once per week as part of an aggressive, management-backed program to eliminate leaks. As part of your program of ongoing plant improvement, we recommend that you monitor the plant-wide compressed air requirement, and eliminate inappropriate uses of compressed air. With knowledge of the magnitude and timing of compressed air use, you can more optimally match your compressors to the loads, which may result in significant operating savings. By repairing leaks, using nozzles on blow-off hoses, and replacing airdriven processes when appropriate, you may be able to reduce total compressed air requirement so that you no longer need the capacity of your 250-hp compressor. Your use of compressed air to agitate plating tanks may be such an inappropriate use and should be investigated. Using motor-driven mixers would likely provide the same result at lower overall cost. Estimated Savings Repairing Leaks

During our visit, we identified several leaks in the compressed air system. To quantify the energy wasted by these leaks, we estimated the effective diameter of each leak and assumed that your compressor generates about 4 scfm per brake horsepower (Compressed Air Systems, DOE/CS/40520-T2). Location BGG1 packaging 2423.B2 machine Sand blaster Bar washer Press 14API 14MCC7 machine Plater bath Total Size of Hole 1 /16
1

# holes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

scfm/hole 3.96 15.86 15.86 15.86 3.96 3.96 15.86

scfm lost 3.96 15.86 15.86 15.86 3.96 3.96 15.86 75.32

hp lost 0.99 3.97 3.97 3.97 0.99 0.99 3.97 18.83

/8

/8 /8 1 /16 1 /16
1 1

/8

Table 7.1 Compressed air leaks in plant.

Assuming the 250-hp compressor motor is 93% efficient, the power and energy required to supply air to these leaks is about: 18.83 hp x 0.746 kW/hp / 93% = 15 kW 15 kW x $10.51 /kW-month x 12 month/year = $1,892 /year 15 kW x 24 hour/day x 5 days/week x 48 weeks/year = 86,400 kWh/year 86,400 kWh/year x $0.021 /kWh = $1,814 /year The savings from repairing these leaks would be about: $1,892 /year + $1,814 /year = $3,706 /year Running 150-hp compressor during 3rd shift To estimate savings from running the 150-hp compressor in place of the 250-hp compressor, we assume that, on third shift, the 150-hp unit would be fully loaded 100% of the time. (To determine actual percent loading, you can measure the current draw of this compressor during third shift. The ratio of time loaded to total time running is the percent loading.) At 4 scfm per hp, your compressor capacity is approximately: 250 hp x 4 scfm /hp = 1000 scfm. 150 hp x 4 scfm /hp = 600 scfm. Thus, with our assumption that the 150-hp unit would operate fully-loaded during third shift, the 250-hp unit would only be 60% loaded when operated on third shift.

600 scfm required / 1000 scfm capacity = 60% loading Using our measurements of loaded and unloaded current draw for the 250-hp compressor, power draw for this unit is about:
320 Amps 480 Volts 3 * 95 % kW/kVA / 93% = 272 kW loaded 1000 VA /kVA 200 Amps 480 Volts 3 * 95 % kW/kVA / 93% = 170 kW unloaded 1000 VA /kVA

Assuming 60% loading, the electricity use and cost to operate this unit on third shift are about: (60% x 272 kW) + (40% x 170 kW) = 231 kW 231 kW x 8 hours/day x 5 dy/wk x 48 wk/yr = 443,520 kWh/yr 443,520 kWh/yr x $0.021 /kWh = $9,314 /yr Using the 150-hp compressor instead, power draw for compressing air is decreased. Since this happens on third shift, savings would come entirely from electrical consumption reduction, and not demand. The electricity use and costs would be about: (150 hp x 100%) x 0.746 kW/hp / 93% = 120 kW 120 kW x 8 hours/day x 5 dy/wk x 48 wk/yr = 230,400 kWh/yr 230,400 kWh/yr x $0.021 /kWh = $4,838 /yr The savings from using the smaller compressor on third shift would be about: $9,314 /yr - $4,838 /yr = $4,476 /yr Total annual savings, including leak repair would be about: $4,476 /yr + $3,706 /yr = $8,182 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost To repair leaks, we estimate that about 50 labor hours per year at $20 /hour and $200 of supplies would be needed. Total cost of implementation would be about $1,200. Estimated Simple Payback Simple payback = $1,200 cost / $8,182 /yr savings x 12 months/year = 2 months