Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Oklahoma State University

Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering
Fact Sheet Series for
Cattle Feedlot Operations

Fact Sheet #1

BOILER BLOWDOWN MANAGEMENT AND HEAT

RECOVERY

R. Scott Frazier, PhD, PE, CEM

Oklahoma State University

Introduction
Boilers produce steam and/or hot water as their primary task. To do this, the boiler must take in water
from some source (usually utility water), convert to steam, and distribute the steam to some process
(Figure 1). As the steam is used, condensate forms. This condensate may or may not be returned to the
boiler. Steam is also lost in processes and steam leaks. One of the end results of this on-going process is
that make-up water is added to the boiler.

Figure 1. Generic diagram of steam boiler. Fire tubes are usually inside the main boiler vessel or
drum. (Steam-Boiler.org)
The make-up water that is added to the boiler is typically utility or well water. This water will have
varying amounts of minerals and chemicals (calcium, sodium, magnesium, etc.). In a round-about way,
we can think of the boiler as a form of water distiller. As make-up water is added to the boiler to
compensate for the process water losses, the relative amounts of minerals and chemicals increases or
accumulates in the boiler drum. For large boilers running many hours with considerable make-up water,
the minerals, or mud can accumulate and completely clog the boiler in a few days.
To combat this accumulation of minerals in the boiler drum, boiler designers have incorporated various
mechanisms to prevent minerals from stopping the boiler operations. There are two main solutions. We
could improve the quality of the incoming water via filtration (i.e., RO) to reduce blowdown or, we could
use some of the steam energy to remove the mud from the boiler drum. Water filtration systems are
expensive and must be maintained. We will consider the common method of using steam pressure to
reduce boiler drum mud in this fact sheet.
This process is known as blowdown. Boiler contaminants tend to accumulate at the bottom of the
drum (mud) and some float on the top of the water level (scum). A bottom or mud blowdown is a

method by where an amount of steam is used to partially stir up the bottom mud and then a valve on
the bottom of the drum is opened and the muddy water is blown out to the drain. A top or
skimming blowdown shoots a jet of steam across the top of the water level and this pushes the top
scum over to a purge valve where it is also blown into the drain (Figure 2). Often (depending on the
mineral content of the makeup water), the top blow down is continuous. Automatic controls can
operate these valve systems by monitoring the drum water conductivity which is a good proxy for the
mud content of the drum. Timers are sometimes also used. In some cases the blowdown is done daily
by hand on a timed schedule.

Figure 2. Boiler Blowdown System (AEE)

Heat Recovery from Blowdown

Regardless of the method of controlling the top and bottom blowdown, considerable energy is lost
down the drain when blowdown occurs. Depending on the local water quality, blowdown can be
between 1-10% of the total steam production. This is a significant amount of steam and energy. We
have to remember that the blowdown is essentially live steam and hot water being sent down the drain.
A typical boiler might operate at 100 psia1 pressure. The saturation temperature at this pressure is
1

85 psig

about 328F. The energy content of the steam at these conditions is 1,187 Btu/lb and the energy
content of the pressurized liquid water is 299 Btu/lb. The point here is that boiler blowdown is a loss of
considerable energy that could be used to improve the efficiency of the boiler or used directly in some
other process. Yet, we still need to do the blowdown to keep the drum clean.
Blowdown heat recovery is straightforward to understand. For this example, we will assume that the
blowdown controls are operating the blowdown process correctly (this should be checked actually). We
will also assume a continuous blowdown for the top or skimming operation. We will assume that the
bottom blowdown is occurring at some regular interval as the drum water continuity measurement
reaches some point which triggers the bottom blowdown process.
As the continuous blowdown steam and water leave the drum, they pass through a heat exchanger to
capture some portion of the thermal energy that would otherwise be wasted. This waste heat can be
used to preheat the incoming make-up water (Figure 3). This is a feedback loop that brings thermal
energy back into the boiler system. The incoming make-up water is typically about 60F. We know that
the boiler needs to get this water to about 328F to form steam (100 psia) so any increase in the
incoming water temperature - is energy we do not have to add from fuel. Essentially, you have already
paid for the fuel to produce this heat lets reuse it before sending it down the drain. This is a direct
dollar savings in avoided fuel costs.

Figure 3. Blowdown and Heat Recovery (Steam-Boilers.org)

The same technique can be used on the bottom blowdown. The main difference is that bottom
blowdown is usually not continuous (hopefully not). Therefore we need a control on the bottom
blowdown heat exchanger and make-up water valve to operate only when bottom blowdown is
occurring. This is fairly straightforward and done with a switch signal from the bottom blowdown

controller. As with the continuous blowdown heat recovery, as hot liquid sent to the drain, part of its
thermal energy is recovered to preheat the incoming makeup water or sent to some process needing
heat.
Flash Steam Recovery
When the bottom blowdown purges liquid from the boiler, it is at high temperature and pressure.
When this liquid reaches a lower pressure, we will generate flash steam. This is why blowdown going to
the drain is usually easy to spot because of all the steam generated. So, we can recover a lower pressure
steam from this waste stream as it flashes. This lower pressure steam (say 50 psia) can be used in
certain processes such as space heaters or deaerators. If we maintain a pressurized condensate recovery
system, we can bring the flashed steam directly back to the make-up water tank (Figure 3). As with all
heat recovery, we have to match the timing of this steam (energy) to a coincident need such as the
space heater. If there is no need for space heat when the bottom blowdown occurs, we could simply
preheat the incoming makeup water as described above.

Figure 3. Flash Steam Recovery System (AEE)

Amount of Energy Recovery Possible

The worse the incoming water quality (total dissolved solids-TDS), the more opportunity for blowdown
heat recovery as the blowdown systems will be operating for longer time periods. Remember however
that we are only recovering a portion of the energy lost in the blowdown so this is not an endorsement
for poor quality make-up water. It would be better to never do blowdown at all. This is also why proper

condensate recovery is important you are returning clean, distilled water to the boiler (see fact sheet
on condensate recovery).
Typically, the first step in determining the potential blowdown heat recovery is to estimate the amount
of blowdown that is occurring. There are a variety of ways to do this. We will look at a fairly
straightforward method to determine percent blowdown.
Example with Economics
Let us assume we have a 300 HP boiler (10 MMBtu/hr) operating at 100 psig for 8,700 hours per year.
We assume a heat exchanger efficiency of 85%. Assume a natural gas cost of $5.00/MMBtu (MCF).
Assuming the boiler is 80% efficient, this boiler will produce about 10,350 lbsteam/hour. If the continuous
blowdown is set at 900 lbsteam/hour the percent blowdown is:
% Blowdown = [900 lb/hr]/[900 lb/hr + 10,350 lb/hr] = 8%

Table 1. Boiler Blowdown Heat Recovery (U.S. Dept of Energy, EERE)

We now take the 8% blowdown to the EERE Table 1 (above). We see that 8% blowdown at 100 psig
yields 2,000,000 Btu/hr for every 100,000 lb/hr input. Therefore, the equation for our 300 HP boiler
would be:
Annual Energy Savings = [2MMBtu/hr] x [10,350 lb/hr/100,000 lb/hr]x[8,700 hr/yr]x[1/0.8]x[0.85]
Annual Energy Savings = 1,913 MMBtu/year
Annual Cost Savings = Annual Energy Savings x Fuel Cost = 1,913 MMBtu x $5.00/MMBtu
Annual Cost Savings = $9,567/year
This is a significant savings that will occur year after year. As the price of gas rises in the winter (and
over time generally) the savings will increase. We did not include the bottom blowdown that might add

other 1-2 % points on the blowdown rate. If the cost to add the blowdown recovery equipment was
about $15,000, the simple payback would be:
Simple Payback = Investment Savings = [$15,000]/[$9,567] = 1.6 years
Summary
Boiler blowdown is one of the main methods of ensuring that the boiler drum is kept clean of
accumulated minerals (mud). Unfortunately, blowdown also uses considerable boiler energy because
steam is the working media used to push the contaminants out. There are heat recovery methods of
recuperating much of the wasted energy though and save money on fuel costs.
The systems described in this recommendation are often suggested by boiler manufacturers these days.
The best time to implement this is when purchasing the equipment new. However, we can see that even
a retro-fit can have excellent economics. When combined with other boiler improvements such as
better burner controls, significant fuel savings are possible.

References:
Association of Energy Engineers (AEE): CEM 5-day training series
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE US Dept of Energy): Boiler and Blowdown Heat
Recovery series
http://www.steamboilers.org/
Bill Quisenberry, Plains Plumbing Co. LLC, Amarillo, Texas.

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Oklahoma State University
Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering
Fact Sheet Series for
Cattle Feedlot Operations

Fact Sheet #2
INCREASE OVERALL BOILER STEAM SYSTEM EFFICIENCY BY USE OF
DIGITAL BURNER CONTROLS (MODULATING)

R. Scott Frazier, PhD, PE, CEM

Oklahoma State University

Introduction
Steam boilers are combustion devices not unlike internal combustion engines in many ways. Both use a
fuel that is mixed with air and combusted. Both devices have the need for control of air/fuel ratios to
function properly. Problems occur when boiler or engines experience lean or rich fuel mixtures.
There is also similarity in the control methods used to throttle both types of machines.
Boilers typically use natural gas burners to heat the water in the boiler drum. These burners produce
flames and hot exhaust gases that pass through fire tubes immersed in water in the boiler drum 1(see
Figure 1.).

Figure 1. Fire tube boiler (Castelnuovo)

The burners are usually rated in millions of Btus per hour (e.g., 5 MMBtu/hr) but can be throttled below
this maximum rating. Another function of the burner is to maintain the correct, or near stoichiometric
air and fuel ratio. The stoichiometric ratio is the exact ratio at which the combustion equation of natural
gas is consumed completely to produce by products of heat, CO2 and water (see Equation 1).

Water-tube boilers have water inside the tubes but the principle is the same.

We can approximate natural gas with methane (CH4) in the combustion relationship.

CH 4 + 2O 2 CO 2 + 2H2 O (Eq.1)
By working out the molecular weights we find that the stoichiometric air to fuel (AFR) ratio for natural
gas (methane) is about 14 to 1. If the burner could maintain this AFR, the burner would be running as
efficiently as possible. In reality, boiler tuners tend to set the AFR slightly on the lean, or excess air (O2)
side in order to guarantee the consumption of all fuel and so as to not produce any carbon monoxide
(CO) which is highly toxic (to the right of bottom axis in Figures 2 & 3). Once a burner is adjusted and
tuned it will begin to go out of tune without further adjustment. Sometimes the burner goes out of tune
slowly, but it is inevitable. Sometimes the burner begins to bring in more excess air or it may go out of
tune by running rich (to the left of the stoichiometric point in Figures 2 & 3). Regardless, the efficiency
of the burner and boiler begin to suffer.

Figure 2. Graph showing stoichiometric curves air/fuel combustion

Figure 3. Boiler gas curves (AEE)

Boiler operators tend to think in terms of excess air expressed as a percentage (Figure 3). The amount
of excess air can usually be set by the operator. Excess air is directly related to the percent of oxygen
detected in the exhaust gases also.
Typically, the efficiency of the boiler is measured with an exhaust gas analyzer measuring the flue gases.
The analyzer is usually measuring levels of oxygen (O2) as this is a good proxy for boiler efficiency. This
is also why automotive fuel injection systems have O2 or lambda sensors placed in the exhaust
system. A boiler in good tune will have an O2 reading of about 1-2% 2. It is not unusual to find boilers
running at 7-9% O2.
Roughly, the boiler efficiency drops one percent for every 2% O2 increase (see Table 1 below).
Therefore, a boiler running at 10% O2 if tuned to 2% O2 may experience an efficiency increase of about
4%. This may not sound like much of an improvement (4%) but the old adage that a small bit of a very
large number is still a large number applies here. A 500 HP boiler running for 8,000 hours per year will
use 132,000 MCF (1,000 cubic feet) of natural gas. At $5.00/MCF this is $660,000 per year in fuel costs.
2

Be aware that some locations have local codes requiring O2 readings no lower than 3% unless automatic trim controls are
used.

Four percent of this is $26,400 per year in savings to keep the boiler tuned. If the company tuned the
boiler once a year the savings might be less depending on how fast the boiler goes out of tune.
Regardless, the potential for energy and cost savings is large.

Table 1. Table showing boiler efficiency versus excess air and O2 % (U.S. Dept of Energy, EERE)
The same situation existed with automobiles in the 1970s. Mechanical carburetion, which had to be
periodically tuned, was not able to keep up with strict air pollution and fuel economy regulations. These
devices will slowly go out of tune (ask any classic car buff). What was needed was a control system that
could sense deviation from a stoichiometric set point and automatically adjust the air fuel ration back to
optimum. This is known as electronic fuel injection (EFI). EFI uses the exhaust O2 sensor to adjust the
air fuel ratio going into the engine. Not only did EFI lower the overall air pollutants but it increased the
fuel economy (and horsepower to some extent) of the vehicles. In some cases the improvements were
dramatic and accomplished by digital AFR control.
Modulating Burner Control
The same type of control methodology is available in boiler combustion control and is sometimes called
burner modulation or linkage less controls. Basically the burners have electric air/fuel ratio
controllers that accept various signals from the process. For example, if the exhaust stack O2 sensor is
indicating a deviation from some set-point such as 2% O2, the burner modulating control will adjust the
AFR until the 2% O2 level is achieved. This is sometimes described as oxygen trim. Because this is a
digital control this adjustment will be rapid. As demand on the boiler (steam load) fluctuates, the AFR
can also be momentarily affected. However the modulating burner will instantly adjust to this. The
modulating burner controls try to optimize the boiler for all operating conditions. This really is a winwin situation and in retrospect appears quite logical.
As in cars, boiler maintenance is improved with automatic AFR control because the boiler is always in a
state of fine tune. Fire tubes do not accumulate soot as fast and the temperatures in the boiler and
steam distribution system are more even. Process quality can also improve because the steam
temperature and pressure is more consistent.

One of the few drawbacks to digital modulating burner control (besides first costs) is that boiler
operators may not have the training needed to operate automatic digital controls and workstations.
The solution is obvious and probably inevitable anyway. Most facilities employ a variety of digital
devices such as variable speed drives and PLCs therefore the additional training for digital burner
controls will not be that big a stretch.
Energy and Cost Savings from Modulating Controls
As with most energy opportunities, the possible savings is largely dependent on the current situation.
The author has seen boilers where the facility operator cannot remember if the boiler was tuned in the
past 10 years. An O2 test showed 10% O2. This boiler had probably wasted tens of thousands of dollars
over the years. Other boilers have been recently tuned and when tested, showed low O2 levels. In
most cases however, the boilers with old mechanical fire controls experience efficiency drops at partloads.
Again, depending on the current setup, overall fuel savings of 3% would not be unusual 3. For
example, a 300 HP boiler at 80% efficiency and running 8,000 hours per year would consume:
300 HP boiler x (33,475 Btu/hr/HP boiler ) x (1/0.8) x (8,000 hours/yr) = 100,425 MCF/year
At a price of $5.00/MCF this is: 100,425 MCF/year x $5.00 = $502,000/year
Three percent of this is: $15,064 per year savings
If the boiler controls cost $12,000 installed, this is a less than one year payback.

Sequencing
For facilities with multiple boilers, the controls should help to optimize the scheduling and running of
the boilers. This is especially true if all the boilers feed a common steam manifold. Problems also occur
if boilers are different sizes. Typically, we want the largest boiler to provide a steady baseload at near
full load. Variation above the base load can be handled by a smaller boiler that is easier to throttle.
Sequencer controls can do this optimization assignment task automatically.
Another task that sequencers can do is spreading the run-time evenly between several boilers so that
wear and tear does not accelerate the breakdown of a particular boiler. Sequencer control can provide
this task while also optimizing other functions.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/steam24_burners.pdf

Safety and Requirements

All controls described must be installed such that safety is not compromised. All equipment and
processes must also meet all applicable codes and environmental regulations. For example, controls
need to be cross limited to start purge air before fuel is introduced and ignited (explosion hazard).
Summary
Boilers are machines that use a considerable amount of fuel. In order to optimize the fuel economy,
boiler need to be in a fine state of tune. Old mechanical fire control systems start to drift out of tune
immediately after being set. Modern digital boiler fire control systems can keep a boiler closer to
optimum tune at all times and save fuel costs.
Retrofitting boiler controls will take time and effort however the paybacks can be rapid depending on
the current condition of the boiler controls. For multiple boilers that run long hours, sophisticated
digital burner and sequencer controls are recommended. While not inexpensive, modern controls can
pay back rapidly.

References:

Castelnuovo: <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/File:Fire-tube_Boiler.png>

Association of Energy Engineers (AEE): CEM 5-day training series

Bill Quisenberry, Plains Plumbing Co. LLC, Amarillo, Texas.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE US Dept of Energy): Boiler and Blowdown Heat
Recovery series

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Oklahoma State University
Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering
Fact Sheet Series for
Cattle Feedlot Operations

Fact Sheet #3

Boiler Heat Recovery Using Exhaust Economizers

R. Scott Frazier, PhD, PE, CEM

Oklahoma State University

Introduction:
A natural gas boiler looses about 18-22% of the fuel energy up and out the exhaust stack (Figure 1). This
is an invariable result of the process of combustion. If we could capture some of the waste heat before
it escapes, we could improve the overall efficiency of the boiler. In turn, we could save energy costs.

Figure 1. Boiler energy balance

This is precisely what a boiler economizer does. The name economizer is a bit old fashioned but is
describing the energy and cost recovery. Do not confuse a boiler economizer with an air conditioning
system economizer they are completely different devices. Other names for boiler economizers include
recuperator and regenerator. Normally, the device called a recuperator is used to pre-heat the
boiler combustion air. This device is not used as often as the economizer as it interacts with the burners
and complicates the air to fuel ratios. We are interested in boiler economizers here.
Essentially, the economizer is a heat exchanger that is placed into the boiler exhaust stream (Figure2).
The economizer is usually used to provide heat (thermal energy) to the boiler feed (or make-up)
water. The hotter you can get the water coming into the boiler the less natural gas fuel you need to
use to get this water to boil and make steam. Basically, the economizer is using energy that you have
already paid for to provide input energy into the boiler. Its a feedback loop - pulling yourself by your
own bootstraps.
The processes the steam is being used for largely determine how much make-up water is added. Food
or animal feed processes typically lose water (moisture added in the product) and therefore tend to add
considerable utility water as make up to the boiler. Make-up utility water is usually about 60F. Often

there is no condensate or heat recovery and so this is the temperature of all the water entering the
boiler. Now, this water must be heated to 350-450F (depending on boiler pressure). This is a change in
temperature of 290-390F. If we heated the make-up water with an economizer to 160F the change in
temperature would only be 190-290F. This is a considerable savings in fuel usage and costs.

Figure 2. Economizer on boiler exhaust stack heating make-up water

As the economizer removes heat energy from the exhaust stack, the temperature of the exhaust is
lowered. This would seem to be a non-issue except for one possible side effect. If the exhaust gases are
cooled too much, acids can precipitate out of the exhaust. This can cause corrosion problems for the
economizer and flue. Typically, flue gases condensate acids at about 240F. This usually sets the lower
temperature range for economizer operations.
The amount of energy the economizer can recover depends on several factors such as flue exhaust
temperature, flue gas flow rate, and temperature of the make-up water. Very high exhaust
temperatures such as 700F will help the economizer to recover considerable heat energy but may be a
sign of other serious problems such as soot or scale build-up on heating tubes. Typically, economizers
on a healthy boiler will be operating with flue temperatures in the 400-500F range.

Fuel Savings Examples:

A useful rule of thumb is that boilers equipped with economizers can generally expect a 1% increase in
boiler efficiency for every 40F drop in flue gas temperature (Cleaver Brooks). This assumes that the
drop in flue temperature is due to economizer heat recovery. Again, this also depends on the process
and rate of condensate recovery, etc.
For example, let us use a 5 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour boiler running a flue temperature of 450F.
This boiler is fully loaded during operations. The boilers efficiency has just been tested at 78% and it
runs 4,000 hours per year. Natural gas costs about $6.00 per MCF 1 (MMBtu). An economizer is being
considered that would lower the flue temperature to 280F and cost $17,000 installed. Lets see how
the numbers work out.

Cost to run the boiler for one year without economizer:

Energy Used Per Year without Economizer
= [(Boiler Usage Rate) x (Hours per Year)] (Efficiency Rate)
=[(5 MMBTu/hour) x ( 6,000 Hours/Year)] (0.780)
= 38,461 MMBtu (MCF) per Year
Cost to Run Boiler Without Economizer
= (Energy Used per Year) x (Cost of Natural Gas)
= (38,461 MCF/Year) x ($6.00/MCF)
= $230,769 per Year
Cost to run the boiler for one year with economizer:
Percent Efficiency Improvement
= (Change in Temperature) 40
= (450F 280F) 40
= 4.3% Therefore new boiler efficiency = 78.0 + 4.3 = 82.3%

MCF = 1,000 Cubic Feet of Natural Gas 1,000,000 Btu = MMBtu

Energy Used Per Year with Economizer

= [(Boiler Usage Rate) x (Hours per Year)] (Efficiency Rate)
=[(5 MMBTu/hour) x ( 6,000 Hours/Year)] (0.823)
= 36,452 MMBtu (MCF) per Year
Cost to Run Boiler with Economizer
= (Energy Used per Year) x (Cost of Natural Gas)
= (36,452 MCF/Year) x ($6.00/MCF)
= $218,712 per Year
Energy and Dollar Savings from Economizer
=(38,461 MCF/Year) (36,452 MCF/Year) = 2,009 MCF savings/Year
=(2,009 MCF/Year) x ($6.00/MCF) = $12,054
Economizer Economic Payback
= (Investment) (Savings)
= ($17,000) ($12,054/Year)
= 1.4 year

So, for our simple example, an economizer on this boiler would payback in less than two years. As you
can see from the calculations the economics of the economizer are centered on boiler size, heat
recovery (temperature drop), and operating hours. This is reflected in the summary table 1.

Table 1. Economizer Heat Recovery Table for Large Boilers (U.S. Dept of Energy EERE)

If an economizer were combined with other recommendations such as blowdown recovery, insulation
and burner controls, the savings could be even greater. These other recommendations are covered in
other fact sheets in this series.
Summary:
Boiler economizers are now becoming more common as new equipment on boilers. Considering how
logical their benefits are this is not unusual. For boilers without economizers, operators should run the
economics and consider these waste energy devices as a retrofit.

References:

Bill Quisenberry, Plains Plumbing Co. LLC, Amarillo, Texas.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE US Dept of Energy): Boiler energy series

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Oklahoma State University
Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering
Fact Sheet Series for
Cattle Feedlot Operations

Fact Sheet #4

INSULATE BOILER EQUIPMENT AND STEAM

DISTRIBUTION LINES TO SAVE ENERGY

R. Scott Frazier, PhD, PE, CEM

Oklahoma State University

Introduction:
Steam boilers are in the business of delivering heat and pressure. Mostly, the boiler is delivering
heat energy to some process. Therefore, it is surprising but not unusual, to find bare metal
steam distribution lines and other surfaces running for long distances between the boiler and
end-processes.
There are several problems associated with uninsulated steam surfaces. The first is obvious:
loss of temperature and energy to the surrounding air. This causes the boiler to use more fuel
to make up for this temperature loss. The second problem is that when steam cools in the
distribution system it changes phase back to liquid water or condensate. This can cause a host
of problems in the steam distribution system.
Another problem with uninsulated steam surfaces is the possible scalding hazard. Uninsulated
steam lines can easily reach 300 degrees F. This can produce third degree burns instantly on
skin.
Other than the actual steam lines, support equipment such as make-up water tanks need to be
insulated if hot condensate is being returned (as it should) or if the boiler is using an economizer
to preheat the make-up water. It is a shame to go to the trouble to recover this valuable heat
only to lose it with an uninsulated make-up water tank. As implied above, condensate return
lines should also be insulated. Figure 1 shows an infrared image of an uninsulated boiler make
up water tank radiating heat. This lost heat will have to be added back into the system by
burning more fuel.

Figure 1. Infrared image of an uninsulated boiler feedwater tank

Any metal surface that is radiating heat from steam within, is a candidate for adding or replacing
insulation. Examples are the large valves used on the main steam lines and manifolds. Figure 2
shows one of these large steel valves radiating heat. Typically, valves are not insulated because
maintenance personnel are not aware of special lace-up valve covers or feel the covers would
interfere with maintenance tasks. As mentioned, special covers are available to insulate almost
any size or shape of steam valve (see Figure 3 below). Figures 4 through 6 show various
uninsulated surfaces radiating valuable heat.

Figure 2. Infrared image of an uninsulated main steam delivery valve on top of a boiler

Figure 3. Photo of special lace-up steam valve wrap

Figure 4. Front and back view of the boiler makeup water tank with failed insulation

Figure 5. Uninsulated steam lines radiating heat to the air

Figure 6. Uninsulated steam lines radiating heat to the air

Recommended Action
The recommended actions are to insulate the surface of the make-up (MU) water tank, any
condensate return lines, and the steam valves with fiber glass or similar insulation. The steam
valves can be insulated with specially made removable caps. This will prevent excess heat loss
from all these systems and promote energy cost savings. Based on past experience it is
estimated that the insulation will help in reducing 80-90% of the distribution heat loss and thus
reducing the amount of energy needed to run the final process (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Chart showing diminishing return on heat loss reduction versus insulation thickness
The calculations used to show the heat loss; savings from insulation and economic payback are
somewhat complicated and better represented by summary tables. Table 1 is based on one cost
of natural gas which for this example was $6 per MCF ($0.60 per Therm). The higher the cost
of fuel, the faster the payback of insulation projects. Because the payback is an inverse linear
relationship to the cost of fuel, doubling the cost of fuel ($12/MCF) would cut the time to
payback the cost of insulation by one half.
Table 1 is also based on something known as the insulation economic thickness. This term is
describing the fact that after the first couple of inches of insulation the heat loss drops to about
5% and then levels off at about 2% regardless of amount of insulation (see Figure 7 above). The
first inch of insulation stops about 80% of the heat loss. There is a point of diminishing return

(economically) for insulation thickness. For this table (Dept of Energy), the economic
thicknesses were determined by minimizing costs over a seven year period (EERE ORNL/M
4678). The bottom line is that the insulation thicknesses were between 1 and 2 inches.
The thing to notice from the heat loss table is how much the heat loss increases as the diameter
of the uninsulated steam line increases. Also, the heat loss increases rapidly with increases in
pressure.
Heat Loss per 100 Feet of Uninsulated Steam Line,
MMBtu/year
Steam Line
Steam Pressure, PSIG
Diameter
Inches
15
150
300
1"
140
285
375
2"
235
480
630
4"
415
850
1,120
8"
740
1,540
2,030
12"
1,055
2,200
2,910
Table 1. Heat loss figures based on steam system operating 8,760 hours per year (based on
EERE Paper)
Economics Example:
If natural gas costs $5.00 per MMBtu (MCF) and the feedlot has 500 feet of uninsulated 1 and
50 feet of 2 diameter steam lines operating at 150 psig the heat loss from the table is:
1-inch line: 500 ft x 285 MMBtu/yr/100 ft = 1,425 MMBtu/year
2-inch line: 50 ft x 480 MMBtu/yr/100 ft
= 240 MMBtu/year
Total Heat Loss = 1,665 MMBtu/year
If the boiler is 80% efficient, and the insulation reduces 90% of the heat loss, the annual cost
savings from insulating the pipes is:
[(Uninsulated Heat Loss) x (Insulation Efficiency) x (Cost of Boiler Fuel)]/Boiler Efficiency = Cost
Savings
[(1,665 MMBtu/year) x (0.9) x ($5.00/MMBtu)]/(0.8) = $9,366/Year Cost Savings
1 Pipe Insulation Cost = $3.10/foot (Grainger Online Catalog, #199744, Dec, 2011)
2 Pipe Insulation Cost = $6.78 (Grainger Online Catalog, #200267, Dec, 2011)
Total Insulation Cost:
(500 feet x $3.10/ft) + (50 feet x $6.78/ft) = $1,550 + $339 = $1,889

Labor costs to install = 8 hours to install x $25/hour = $200

Total Cost = $2,089
Project Economic Payback = Cost/Savings = $2,089/$9,366 per year = 0.22 year = 3 months
This particular example paid back quite well partially because of the long run hours (24/7) and
the relatively high pressure (150 psig). A more typical feedmill boiler operating at 100 psig and
for 4,000 hours per year might save somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,700 with just under a
year payback.
Summary:
Metal steam lines and make-up water tanks can lose significant amounts of heat energy to the
surrounding air. The lost energy must be made up on the boiler fuel input side of the process.
Essentially, these heat losses are types of parasitic or waste loads for the boiler.
The simplest method of minimizing this lost heat energy is by insulating the offending pipes and
tanks. Depending on the steam temperature, area of uninsulated surface and price of fuel, the
economic payback can be rapid. Even odd shaped surfaces such as steam valves (Figure 3.) can
be insulated. Additionally, the insulation provides scalding safety for personnel and limits owner
liability.

References:

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE US Dept of Energy): Boiler energy series

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Oklahoma State University
Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering
Fact Sheet Series for
Cattle Feedlot Operations

Fact Sheet #5

Feedlot Electric Utility Billing

R. Scott Frazier, PhD, PE, CEM

Oklahoma State University

Introduction
The first step in trying to save money on electric, gas or fuel costs is to understand how the energy
usage is being billed. Petroleum products (gases and fuels) are somewhat straightforward; however,
electrical energy and power billing can be confusing. It is almost impossible to be involved with trying to
save energy costs if one does not understand exactly how the energy (electricity, gas, and fuel) is being
billed. While natural gas billing can be influenced by weather and demand, it is the electric billing where
the customer can make process changes and achieve cost savings and our discussion here will center on
electricity. Often, significant cost savings can be realized by simply understanding the rate schedules
and changing some aspect of a process such as start times.
Electricity is a unique energy source in that it cannot be economically stored by individual users. The
utility must be able to provide whatever need there is immediately. This is known as demand. Not
meeting this immediate demand, or capacity, can lead to widespread problems for the utility and
customers. Basically, the utilities must predict the largest need in their territory and then overbuild
generating, transmission and distribution equipment in order to supply this demand - plus a margin for
future growth. This over-sizing of equipment is expensive and the utility recaptures this investment
through various components of the electricity bill.
Another aspect of electrical energy usage is that the system demand problems tend be worse during
certain seasons and times of the day. In the summer, air conditioning loads will be highest in the
afternoon and evening as the sun heats residences and buildings. Also, people will be coming home
from work and starting evening chores. In the winter, the electrical system may experience increased
loads in the early morning and afternoon. These peak loads vary largely depending on what types of
heating and cooling systems (gas or electric) make up the majority of buildings in the utilities territory.
In many cases, the utility systems are close to full capacity. That is, any significant additional load
(demand) will strain the existing equipment such as lines and generation. Utilities use pricing methods,
or signals, to encourage customers to reduce usage during periods when the utility system is nearing its
peak capacity. These signals are often written into the customers rate schedule. Understanding the
rate schedule often leads to the ability to save energy costs.
Reading and Understanding Your Electric Utility Rate Schedule
As an electric utility rate-paying customer, you have a right to read and understand your electric rate
schedule (sometimes called the tariff). In fact it is difficult to successfully lower your electrical utility
costs until you understand your rate schedule. However, few rate payers have ever actually looked at
their rate schedule closely.
Many rate schedules are posted on the internet. Simply search for your electricity provider and look for
rates, schedule or tariff. You can also call or write your utility and request a copy of the rate
schedule you are on. It is better to have an actual copy in hand rather than try to copy a verbal
description. Keep in mind that some customers are on special rates negotiated in the past. You must
have your current rate at hand in order to understand the utility billing.

What follows is a short description of the terminology and the billing components you will likely
encounter on the rate schedule and a generic example of a small commercial time of use (TOU) demand
rates schedule. Rate schedules vary between utilities but are usually a combination of the pieces shown
below. Your schedule may be different but this example shows some of the basics of electric rate
schedule construction.
Generic Commercial TOU Rate Schedule with Tiered Energy and Power Factor Charges
Rate:

Customer Service Fee:

Plus
Demand (kW) Charge:
Plus
Energy (kWh) Charge Summer:
(Summer = July 1 Sept 30)
Or
Energy (kWh) Charge Winter:
(Winter = Oct 1 June 30)

$25.00 per customer per month

$8.00 per month kW of billing demand
First 10,000 kWh billed = $0.09/kWh
Over 10,000 kWh billed=$0.05/kWh
First 10,000 kWh billed = $0.06/kWh
Over 10,000 kWh billed=$0.035/kWh

Power Factor: For measured customer power factor less than 90%, the demand charge
will be the measured demand multiplied by 90% and divided by the measured power
factor.

Typical Electric Utility Schedule Billing Components

kWh (Kilowatt-hours) also called: Energy or Consumption .
This is the amount of electrical energy that is used over time by the consumer. A kilowatt is 1,000 watts
and a kilowatt-hour is 1,000 watts used for one hour. For example: Ten, 100 watt lamps that ran for
one hour would have used 1 kWh. Think of the odometer on your car. The kWhs are similar to the
number of miles your car traveled during a certain time period.
kW (Kilowatt) also called Demand.
This is the amount of power that a customers facility or operation is pulling (demanding) from the utility
electrical system at a given moment in time. Actually, the time period is not instantaneous but usually a
15 minute average (advantageous for the consumer). In our lamp example, the ten, 100 watt lamps are
pulling 1,000 watts (1 kW) at any time they are on. Therefore, the lamps have 1 kW of demand.
Demand is similar to the miles per hour needle on the speedometer telling us how fast we are going at
any particular point in time.

Power Factor (PF) also called Reactive Power.

This concept is a bit complicated but basically it is a measure of how effectively the customer is utilizing
the electrical energy the utility provides. You might think, Why should the utility care how I use my
electricity? Power Factor problems on the customers end are a problem for the utility system also.
This is a phantom load that the utility must provide but does no useful work for anyone. Power factor is
a percent or fraction, less than or equal to one, and is considered bad if it is low (for example, a PF of
50% or 0.5 is not good). Power factor is a problem if the customer is: (1) On an account that has PF
billing and (2) Has large inductive loads like big electric motors. Residential and small commercial
accounts typically dont have PF billing.
Demand Ratchet
This component of electrical demand (kW) billing is a way the utility attempts to get consumers to even
their load during the year (month to month). In the demand billing section of your rates you may find
wording such as: In no case will the billed demand be less than seventy percent (70%) of the maximum
demand established during the past eleven (11) months. What this means is that if the customer sets a
year high peak demand of 1,000 kW (larger farm/feedlot operation) in June, the minimum demand for
next eleven months will be the greater of the actual demand used or 700 kW. This could be important
for agricultural customers who only operate a few months a year.
Time of Use Rate (TOU)
This is a type of billing schedule that assigns higher costs to electricity usage (usually kWh) depending on
the time of day and season. As mentioned in the introduction, this billing is done to motivate customers
to move loads to different (off-peak) periods. The difference between on and off-peak costs vary.
Typically the higher rates during the day will occur in the early afternoon to early evening (for example,
2:00 pm to 8:00 pm).
Tiered Energy Charge
Some utilities charge less per kWh the more you use (some utilities may charge more). Regardless,
this tiered or block structure will show up on your rate schedule. An example might be that the first
2,000 kWh used in a month are charged at $0.08 per kWh. Any usage above 2,000 kWh that same
month is charged at $0.035 per kWh.
Load Factor
This is different from Power Factor. Some utilities base the charges on the customers load factor. Load
factor is a measure that describes how level, or consistent, the customers electrical usage is throughout
the month. For instance, a facility that used the same amount of electrical power day and night for a
month would have a load factor of one. This is good from the utilities standpoint (easy to plan
capacity). A facility that uses a significant amount of energy for a few hours, and then shuts down for
long periods (for example a church), would have a low load factor. One way to calculate a monthly load

factor is to divide the months total kWh by the maximum measured months demand (kW) times 720
hours in the month.
Example Electric Bill with Time of Use (TOU), Demand, kWh Tier, and Power Factor for a Commercial
Rural Account (like a smaller feedlot).
This is a hypothetical electric bill that demonstrates several of the concepts described above. The bill
and rates are fictitious and actual bills will vary.
Rate:

Use the generic TOU rate schedule shown above in this fact sheet

Example Bill Calculation

Lets assume that this feedlot used 27,532 kWh in July with a measured demand of 120 kW. Their
metered power factor was 62% (0.62). What would the bill look like?
Customer Service Fee - $25.00
Demand (kW) and Power Factor
Maximum of:
Measured demand - $8.00/kW x 120 kW = $960
Or
Power Factor Calculation (120 kW x 0.9)/(0.62) = 174 kW x $8.00/kW = $1,392 (This is the
higher number so this is what will be billed for demand)
Energy (kWh)
10,000 kWh x $0.09/kWh = $900.00 (First Cost Tier Summer)
27,532 kWh 10,000 kWh = 17,532 kWh x $0.05 = $876.60 (Second Cost Tier Summer)
Total Bill (not including taxes): $25 + $1,392 + $900 + $876.60 = $3,193.60 (+taxes)
for month of July
How is Understanding the Rate Structure Useful?
Lets look at our hypothetical feedlot operation. Knowledge of the rate schedule gives the operator
several opportunities to possibly lower electrical costs. Notice, we did not explicitly say lower electrical
energy use. We are talking about taking advantage of rate schedule knowledge here energy
conservation is different and would add to the savings.

Is there a way to lower the demand cost? Is it possible to not have as much equipment running at the
same time during the month? If we can try not to run everything simultaneously, we would save energy
and demand costs.
The low power factor (62%) is increasing the demand cost in this example billing month by about $432.
If not corrected, this will cost the facility an additional $5,184 per year for electricity that is not doing
anything. Look to the electric motors or other systems to figure out why the power factor is so low.
Maybe some operations could be done at different times of the year. Suppose that some of the work
done in July could be done during other months of the year besides the three higher-rate months of
July, August and September. Using the cheaper winter rates, the 27,532 kWh charge would cost
$1,213.62, not $1,776.60 a savings of $562.98 for that month. Maybe the operations cannot be done
at different off-peak times, but you see the possible opportunity here.
If the rate schedule had a time of day cost (another type of TOU rate) that went up for six hours in the
afternoon in the summer (this example did not), the operator might be able to reschedule some
operations to early morning or evening. In some utilities territories, the cost difference between peak
and off-peak time of use is significant. Ironically, the more complex the rate schedule the more
opportunities there usually are for cost savings.
Summary
Knowledge of your electric rate schedule is important in understanding how you can save money on
your bills. The future of electrical utility billing will probably include new rate structures such as real
time pricing. This will require that the consumer be aware of electrical usage and specifics of the bill in
order to minimize costs. Understanding your current electrical rate structures is also a great way to
prepare for these new billing methods and maybe save some energy costs now. If you have questions
about your electric rates you can call your utility for clarification.

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Oklahoma State University Biosystems Engineering
Fact Sheet Series for
Cattle Feedlot Operations

Fact Sheet #6

IRRIGATION PUMP SYSTEM TESTING

R. Scott Frazier, PhD, PE, CEM

Oklahoma State University

Introduction:
Pumps are widely used in a variety of locations by rural operations. Feedlots can use
considerable amounts of water transported by pumping. In some locations with heavy
irrigation operations, the pumping systems can comprise the majority of the energy costs. For
this reason, these systems should be inspected and improved if possible.
Pump Energy Basics
The pump system curve describes the relationship between the pump flowrate (q Gallons per
Minute, gpm) and the head pressure (h Feet, ft) for the actual pump (see Figure 1). The
system curve describes the requirements the system places on the pump while the
performance curves for the pump describe the relationship between the head pressure and the
capacity flow rate of the pump based on the impeller diameter. Usually these curves reflect the
performance at a constant and specific driver speed, rpm. The intersection of the system curve
and the pump performance curve will be the operating pump for the system with the pump
included. Best design practices prefer this intersection to be located close to the best efficiency
point (BEP) of the pump performance curve. This also is the most energy efficient point for the
pumping system to operate. Figure 1 gives an example of a system curve and pump
performance curve intersection at the operation or best efficiency point (BEP).

Figure 1. Example pump performance and system curves.

It is somewhat rare to find older water pumping systems operating at optimal efficiency. Often
these systems were not designed properly and they have degraded over time. Impellers
corrode, wear and even break. Pump systems and pipes can become clogged with dirt,
sediment, and mineral buildup. Often the impeller size is not properly matched to motor power
or desired flow rate. The end result is wasted energy and money.
By conducting a pump test, one is able to see how far from optimal (BEP) the actual pump
performance is. In general, pumping systems that are above 60% in pumping efficiency (power
output of pump in flow and lift dived by power input) are considered to be in excellent
condition. Pumping systems that are 49% or below, are either designed incorrectly, in poor
condition, or both, and need to be replaced or repaired. A long term study (ACEEE 1999)
showed the average centrifugal well pump efficiency was 55.4% in Southern California. It is
anticipated that the same poor efficiency average could be found in many regions of the United
States. This indicates that many pumping systems are at or below this value and therefore in
the poor efficiency range. Pumps that have not been examined for over three years are
possibly in the 50% performance range.
Pumping Efficiency
You cant improve what you cant measure is an old but accurate statement. The total
efficiency of a fluid pumping system is a function of the flow rate which can be measured, the
specific gravity of the fluid (water for irrigation), the total dynamic head (system pressure)
and power input (also measured) which is usually the electrical power 1 to an electrical motor.
Lets examine this relationship and how we might determine the efficiency. The calculated
efficiency will, in turn, tell us something about the status of our pumping system and what
opportunities we have to save energy and money.
Begin by looking at the required horsepower (HPw) to pump water at a certain pressure (total
dynamic head, TDH) and at a certain flow rate (GPM). This relationship is:

TDH x GPM
HPw =
3,960
Where:

HPw is the horsepower needed to pump the water

TDH is the total dynamic head measured in feet (see TDH below)
GPM is the flow rate of the water in gallons per minute (desired or measured)

Kilowatts - kW

The flow rate of the water (GPM) can be measured - maybe not easily though. In some cases
we can use ultrasonic velocity measuring devices that clamp onto the outside of the piping and
do not interfere with the water flow. In other cases we may put a measuring device into the
water stream. Once we have the fluid velocity we can multiply by the pipe inside crosssectional area to get an estimate of the flow rate. If this flow rate is what we need and we are
satisfied, we move to the next task. That is, we are getting the flow we want now, are we
producing that flow efficiently? A very basic flow measurement can be made with a 5 gallon
bucket. Begin by timing how long it takes the water flow to fill the 5 gallon bucket in seconds.
Multiply this by 60 to get a ratio in GPM. This is a basic method but would be a good estimate
as long as flow rates are not too high.
Total dynamic head (TDH) is a measure of the amount of resistance to flow in the system. This
is usually measured in terms of feet 2. Total head pressure usually comes from three things:
amount of elevation change, length and shape of piping system, and end-use pressure
requirements. There are various tables and methods of determining TDH. If we are pulling
water from a well, the well depth is given in feet. Charts and tables can be used to estimate the
TDH for lengths and diameters of pipes due to friction losses in the pipes. Turns and valves in
the pipe system add feet to the TDH as they resist flow also. Finally, the end uses such as
nozzles, spray heads, and drip irrigation add their own pressure requirements. Of the
parameters to be measured, TDH is one of the most difficult and is often estimated to some
degree instead of achieving a precise measurement. Pressure requirements are also often overestimated and a just in case over-design is often used. This can lead to lower pump
performance and high costs over time.
Once we have the power needed to pump the water (HPw) at the actual present flow rate, we
can measure the actual electrical power (Pe) being used to currently pump the water at the
GPM measured. A comparison ratio of actual to theoretical optimum power reflects the
pumping systems actual efficiency via the following relationship:

EffTOTAL

HPw x 0.746
=
KWMEASURED

Notice that the measured power will always be greater than the theoretical power and that the
kW measured term is placed in the ratio the dividing part of the equation. We will end up with
an efficiency number between 0 and 1. In reality we will never get close to even 80% because
of the pump and motors efficiencies in the kW measured. Typically, the pumping systems total
2

In water systems, feet of pressure correspond directly to psi pressure. It is an old measurement system still in wide use.

efficiency will be between 0.4 and 0.7 (40 and 70%). The system efficiency will also tend to be
better as the pumping system gets larger. This is because large electric motors and pumps are
generally more efficient than smaller motors and pumps. The table below (Table 1.) shows a
range of pump system efficiencies for different motor horsepowers. Notice the general
increase in efficiency as equipment gets bigger. This does not imply that we should purposely
oversize equipment however.

Table 1. Typical pump system efficiencies (PG&E)

To see what the energy cost implications of this are, the following calculations for one 30 HP
pump will help illustrate the costs involved. The efficiency of the example pump in questions is
determined to be 45% using the techniques above. This could be an old pump that is seriously
clogged with sediment and has wear on the impeller. This low efficiency example is not
uncommon. What if we could rework the system to be 61% efficient?
Pump System Improvement 3
Current pump system calculated at 45% pumping efficiency Improved to 61% efficiency, pump
is running 85% of the time.
Power Savings (one 30 HP pump):

Electrical costs at $9/kW-month and $0.06/kWh

P savings = [HP x 0.746 x %Load 4]/System Effic. old - [HP x 0.746 x %Load]/System Effic. old
P savings = [30 x 0.746 x 1.0]/0.45 - [30 x 0.746 x 1.0]/0.61
P savings = 49.7 kW 36.7 kW = 13 kW
Energy Savings = Power Savings x Run Time
E savings = 13 kW x (8,760 hours/year) x 0.85 (load factor)
E savings = 96,798 kWh/year
Cost Savings:
C savings = (P savings x Power Cost) + (E savings x Energy Cost)
C savings = (13 kW x $9/kW-mo x 12 months) + (96,798 kWh/year x $0.06/kWh)
C savings = $1,404 + $5,808 = $7,212/year
As can be seen, this is not a small amount of savings! Multiply this by several pumping systems
with similar efficiencies over several years and you get tens of thousands of dollars of
opportunity costs. Achieving a 61% pumping efficiency might require extensive rework of the
current system but the cost savings over time can be attractive.
Difficulties
Acquiring the data needed for the pump efficiency calculations can sometimes prove difficult.
The depth of the well is needed as well as an accurate estimate of the system distribution head
pressure. Well openings are sometimes not accessible at all and the water level is often
guessed at. The flow rate of the pump system can sometimes be difficult to measure for a
variety of reasons. If air or solids are in the water flow, faulty velocity measurements can
result. Possibly the biggest problem for average cost calculations is that most systems do not
operate at one constant load. Determining the average or actual load may require data-logging
or (again) estimating. Without actual system data, average loads over long time periods are
often over estimated.
Summary
While you may not have the equipment or means to perform the pump tests, if your operation
has several large pumps running for long periods of time, it may be worth the expense to have
these systems tested by a professional. Companies that often have this service include:
4

Load factor described by customer

irrigation, well drilling and pump supply companies. If the efficiencies are reported to be low,
the companies may also be able to help you service or redesign the systems. You might test a
sample of pumps and determine if further testing is justified. It is also doubtful that electrical
utility costs will decrease in the future. Remember, if pump system run times are long the
payback time may be short and very attractive for addressing the problems.

References:

Centrifugal Tests (ANSI/HI 1.6 -2000), Hydraulic Institute, 2000

Vertical Pump Tests (ANSI/HI 2.6-2000) Hydraulic Institute, 2000

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), Agricultural Pumping Efficiency Improvements, Application
Note, May 1997