Agri Pumping Eff in India
Agri Pumping Eff in India
Agri Pumping Eff in India
The end-use efficiency of agricultural pump sets in India is dismally low. The agricultural power
tariff is highly subsidised and is usually linked to the connected load (not consumption). Farmers
therefore have little incentive for efficient use of electricity. Nearly 500,000 pumps are added each
year to the stock of functioning agricultural pumps, and most of these are not efficient. This paper
evaluates ways in which they can be made efficient. The role of efficiency standards in achieving
this goal and the appropriateness of existing standards is evaluated. The implementability of modi-
fied standards and their possible benefits are quantified.
Pump efficiency standards need substantial improvements. Raising the minimum allowable effi-
ciency and allowing for the effect of deterioration in pump efficiency, which changes with operating
conditions, are the important issues. Standards for pipe-sizing need to be revised. Past work has
not considered the full implications of better standards. Improved standards for agricultural pumps
alone can save India over US$ 129 million per year through the avoided expansion of the power
generation and distribution system and fuel-saving. These savings are far greater than is commonly
believed. The incremental investment necessary for this is just over one-tenth of the savings.
the total head change. Hence, most IPS operate with vary- C = Hazen Williams’s constant, a function of pipe sur-
ing total head and suction head. Therefore, the in-field face
pump efficiency depends on: D = inside diameter of pipe in mm
1. BEP efficiency, and L = length of pipe in m
2. the change in pump efficiency with changing suction It can be seen that, for a given discharge and length of
and total head. pipe, the piping efficiency can be increased (i.e., frictional
Squirrel-cage induction motors are generally used for IPS. loss can be reduced) by: (1) using a low friction pipe,
The difference between the efficiencies of a standard mo- such as rigid PVC (RPVC) pipe; (2) proper layout to re-
tor and an efficient motor (available in the market) ranges duce the pipe length; and, most importantly, (3) increasing
from 5 to 11 percentage points. Efficient motors are suit- the pipe diameter.
able for IPS operation but standard motors are used be- The foot valve (a non-return valve) is the most impor-
cause of cost considerations. tant accessory in piping. The loss of head due to friction
1.2. Piping in the foot valve (Hfv) is proportional to K and V2
The piping efficiency can be defined as:[2] where K = foot-valve characteristics (determined by ma-
ηpiping = useful energy output ÷ total energy input terial, construction and design of footvalve), and
= (Hs + Hd) ÷ (Hs + Hd + Hf) ... (2) V = flow velocity (m/s)
where The K value of the foot valve ranges from 13 to below
Hs = static suction head 0.8 [Patel and Pandey, 1993]. For a given flow velocity
Hd = static delivery head, and the frictional loss is directly proportional to the K value.
Hf = frictional head loss in pipe and accessories 1.3. Efficiency standards for agricultural pumping systems
(in metres of water column) The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the National
The frictional losses in the pipe (Hf) can be estimated Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)
by following equation: have laid down standards/ norms for various aspects of
Hf = 1.213×1010×(Q÷C)1.852×(L÷D)4.87 ... (3) the pumping system.
where BIS, a statutory body of the Government of India, has
Q = rate of discharge in litres per second (lps) developed standards for a number of industrial and do-
mestic products. Adoption of BIS standards is voluntary The standard does not specify a procedure for pump
for appliance manufacturers. BIS has prescribed elaborate selection, and in practice, pump selection is totally arbi-
standards and testing procedures for pumps, motors, pipes trary. Farmers are rarely aware of the importance of
and foot-valves. Manufacturers conforming to BIS stand- proper pump selection or even the relation of head with
ards get an ISI mark, a logo indicating a quality product. flow. Our observations of pump purchase deals (at pump
NABARD is a public sector developmental bank. It ex- dealer shops) revealed that farmers usually decide pump
tends loans for agricultural schemes such as digging power (kW) and the pump dealer implicitly decides pump
wells, installation of IPS or land preparation. It operates head. To determine the most suitable pump, the dealer
mainly by refinancing the loans extended by other com- does not refer to the pump literature. Where water levels
mercial banks to these schemes. NABARD has also pre- are not too deep, a pump for 25m head is sold by default.
pared norms for selection of IPS system components. All For proper pump selection, which is one of the toughest
farmers availing themselves of NABARD credit have to tasks and also the most important, the following condi-
abide by these norms. For small pumping systems, tions need to be satisfied:
NABARD has adopted the BIS norms. But for large • Farmers as well as pump dealers (authorised as well
pumping systems, NABARD has evolved its own norms as unauthorised) need to be made aware of the impor-
for pipe sizing, layout, and pump selection. tance of pump selection relative to head.
• The technical literature written for this purpose needs
2. Evaluation of BIS standards for pumps to be simplified.[3]
For achieving high operating efficiency in a pump, two • Most importantly, farmers need a clear incentive for
factors are important: (1) proper pump selection, and (2) efficient pump use (such as consumption-based power
high pump efficiency. This section analyses BIS norms tariff).
for pump selection and pump efficiency. Hence, the standards have little role in proper pump se-
2.1. Selection of pump lection.
Pump selection involves specification of head as well as 2.2. Pump efficiency
the flow rate, head selection being the most important The BIS standards for minimum pump efficiency (for ag-
aspect. The Indian standard for ‘‘Recommended pumping ricultural use) were introduced in the late 1980s. Pumps
system for agricultural purpose’’ (IS 10804:1994) says: are tested at the design head (BEP head) with a suction
‘‘The pump should be selected in such a way that it head of 6m. This is a one-point test. But, as discussed
shall operate at near maximum efficiency during peak de- earlier, the in-field operating efficiency of a pump de-
mand period in the ranges of discharge and head. It should pends on three aspects:
also be capable to discharge in summer season (when the 1. pump efficiency at the design head (at BEP);
head is likely to be the maximum).’’ 2. change in efficiency with change in total head; and
Figure 5. Social cost as a function of pipe diameter and selection of optimum pipe diameter
For a flow of 20 l/s, the optimum pipe size is 140 mm, while the BIS recommends a pipe size of 110 mm. The total cost rises rapidly if smaller pipe
is used. Most farmers use pipes smaller than even the BIS recommendation. Such decisions result in marginally lower investment for the farmer and
substantially higher electricity cost for society.
as a function of pipe size. With increasing pipe diameter, optimum pipe size.
electricity cost decreases rapidly, but the investment cost The running cost of electricity use is a function of du-
increases. The optimum pipe size, which minimises total ration of pump usage. Hence, the optimum pipe size also
cost, can be arrived at from the figure. This calculation depends on the pump usage. For a given flow, optimum
is based on the average cost of electricity supply (in Ma- pipe sizes at different levels of pump usage have been
harashtra) but farmers do not pay the full cost of electric- calculated. Pump usage levels of 250, 2000 and 6000
ity. Hence, the above calculation reflects the optimum pipe hours per year have been considered. The results are
size from the social point of view. The assumptions made shown in Figure 6.
are listed below: NABARD has evolved piping norms for lift irrigation
1. economic life of RPVC pipe and pump = 10 years, schemes, which usually operate for more than 3000 hours
2. pump set cost = Rs. 1,876 (US$ 50.7) per kW, per year [NABARD, 1991]. For this level of operation,
3. pump set efficiency = 60%, NABARD norms are close to the optimum. The BIS
4. electricity cost Rs. 1.73/kWh (4.7 US cents/kWh) norms are targeted at small pumps. These norms are suit-
[Planning Commission, 1994], able for pump operation below 250 hours per year. Con-
5. 12% (real) discount rate. sidering the national average for pump usage of 1700
The optimum pipe size calculated above considers the av- hr/yr, the BIS norms need to be substantially upgraded.
erage cost of electricity for the power utilities. But Indian 3.3. Accessories and pipe layout
farmers do not pay the full cost of electricity. Hence, they The foot-valve is the most important accessory in piping.
have no incentive to use the optimum pipe size. But the The BIS norms for foot-valves specify that the K value
standards need to consider the social perspective and of the foot-valve should be less than 0.8. Foot-valves
should try to minimise the total cost from this perspective. made by small non-standard manufacturers have K values
In other words the BIS norms for pipe size should be the between 2.5 and 13 [Patel and Pandey, 1993, p. 31]. Re-
same as the optimum pipe size calculated above. searchers and manufacturers have developed ISI-marked
3.2. Comparison of BIS and NABARD piping norms with foot-valves. These efficient foot-valves (of RPVC) are
optimum pipe size widely available in sizes up to 100 mm. Efficient metal
Based on the above calculation, the optimum pipe sizes foot-valves are available in higher sizes also.
for different flow rates are arrived at after considering As regards the pipe layout, the BIS standards specify
commercially available pipe sizes. The BIS and the that low-loss accessories such as ‘‘long radius bends’’
NABARD piping norms are compared with the calculated should be used; the number of bends and length of pipe
Figure 6. Comparison of optimum pipe size with NABARD and BIS norms
The square and triangular marks indicate the NABARD and BIS-recommended pipe sizes for different flows. The lines indicate the optimum pipe sizes
at three levels of pump usage. The BIS norms for pipe sizing are appropriate for pump operation of 250 hr/yr. Considering the Indian average pump
usage of 1,750 hr/yr, BIS norms need to be revised upwards. The NABARD norms applicable for lift irrigation schemes, which usually operate for over
3,000 hr/yr, seem appropriate.
should be reduced. Hence, the BIS specifications are ap- Table 1. Analysis of pipe size data collected during
propriate. rectification projects.
Figure 7. Comparison of pump flange size with BIS-recommended pipe size and the optimum pipe size.
The solid columns in the figure represent the smallest RPVC pipe that fits on the flange. This is the most likely pipe size to be used by farmers. The
* represent the BIS-recommended pipe size for flow at the BEP condition of the pump. The hollow columns indicate the optimum pipe size (for BEP
discharge) that minimises the total cost. In all cases flange size is smaller than the optimum size, while in four cases it is smaller than even the
BIS-specified pipe size.
In the case of small pumping systems it can be gener- sponding to the pump BEP conditions) is shown in Figure
ally assumed that farmers use pipes of the same size as 7 by hollow columns. For all pumps the flange size and
that of the flange. Hence, the implementability of BIS pip- hence the likely pipe to be installed is significantly
ing norms depends on pump flange sizes. And, in turn, smaller than the optimum size.
evaluation of the pump flange sizes becomes important. Government-sponsored projects have rectified the prob-
An analysis of flange sizes of 12 pumps (four pumps of lem of undersized pipes in more than one 100,000 pumps
three manufacturers each) was carried out. in India. But there is an urgent need to prevent piping
The pipe fitting the pump flange size is assumed to be inefficiency in new pumps. Undersized piping seems to
used. Most farmers now use RPVC (rigid PVC) pipes. originate primarily from inappropriate flange sizes.
Hence, the use of RPVC pipe is assumed. The likely pipe Hence, this problem can be largely solved by upgrading
size used is compared with the BIS recommended pipe the BIS norms for pipe and flange sizes. The pump flange
size (at BEP flow condition).[8] Pump operation of 2,000 size should correspond to the improved BIS-recommended
hr/yr and the average cost of electricity supply for the pipe sizes.
utility has been considered for this calculation. Figure 7
shows the expected pipe sizes by bars and the BIS-rec- 5. Economic implications of improved standards
ommended pipe sizes by square points. In the cases of 4 This section evaluates the expected increase in efficiency
pumps, the flange is smaller than the BIS recommenda- of new IPS due to the improved standards and the corre-
tions. As mentioned earlier, if the pump is improperly se- sponding avoided expansion of power supply infrastruc-
lected and operates at a head substantially lower than the ture. The modified BIS standards can improve the
BEP head, the conditions would be worse. Pump dis- efficiency of only new IPS. Nearly half a million new
charge would increase, requiring a higher pipe size as per pumps are added each year in India. It is assumed that
the BIS standards. In that situation, the likely pipe size the benefits of improved efficiency standards (higher
would be smaller than the BIS recommendation for 9 of pump efficiency and higher pipe sizes) can be achieved
12 pumps. for only half of new IPS.
In the light of the earlier conclusion that BIS piping Upward revision of BIS standards for minimum pump
norms need to be upgraded, it is important to compare efficiency would reduce pump consumption by 12 to 14%.
the expected pipe size with the optimum pipe size. The The benefits of improved suction characteristics and flat-
calculated optimum pipe size (for the discharge corre- tening of the head-efficiency curve would be added bene-
fits. Thus it can be safely assumed that improved pump vourable economics, the government and power utilities
efficiency standards can result in 15% energy saving. should spare no effort to upgrade the BIS standards.
Considering such improvement in half of all new pumps,
the total saving would be 140 million kWh/year. This is
equivalent to the useful energy generation of a 26 MW Acknowledgement
(base-load) power plant.[9] This paper is part of a broader study analysing electricity use by irrigation pump sets in
the state of Maharashtra (in western India). This was funded by the International Energy
Installing pipes sized as per the BIS standards can fre- Initiative, Bangalore, India. We are grateful to the IEI staff and Dr. Rangan Banerjee for
quently reduce the electricity consumption by 20% or so reviewing an earlier draft of this paper.
[Jain, 1994; Patel and Pandey, 1993]. After improvement
of BIS standards, flange sizes would be the same as the Notes
optimum pipe sizes, which would be higher than the pre- 1. Most IPS are not metered. The tariff is linked to the connected load (kW). Hence, the
sent BIS standards. If half of all new pumps reduce con- sales to IPS are estimated by the power sector and have been a controversial issue.
sumption by 20%, the national saving works out at 186 2. This definition assumes no water leakage and neglects the velocity head of water, which
is usually small.
million kWh per year. This is equivalent to the saving of
3. The present literature specifies pump characteristics for total head. In effect, it expects
a 35 MW (base-load) power plant each year. the farmer/pump dealer to estimate the required flow and static head, and calculate the
Against such savings the incremental cost of the effi- frictional loss to arrive at the total head. This is too complicated even for the pump
cient pump and higher sized pipe would be about Rs. dealer. Some manufactures already distribute simplified literature based on standard
piping layout and corrections for deviation from the assumed layout.
2,000 per IPS.[10] Hence, the incremental investment cost
4. This assumes the base efficiency of the pump to be 60%.
for 250,000 efficient pumps would be Rs. 500 million
5. For a detailed discussion, see [Sant and Dixit, 1996].
(US$ 14 million). The total saving to the power sector
6. For a constant delivery head of 7.5m considered here, pump B cannot achieve its BEP
would be 61 MW of installed capacity, implying an efficiency.
avoided investment of Rs 3.05 billion (US$ 87 million). 7. The pump manufacturers may need financial and technical support to improve the pump
This is a cost-benefit ratio of below 1:6. quality quickly. The utilities can easily give this support, and would actually benefit
In addition, the power sector will also save fuel corre- substantially from doing so.
sponding to the energy not consumed. At present prices, 8. The pump discharge is a function of the head. At low heads, discharge is high and at
high heads it is low. For simplicity only the flow rate under BEP conditions has been
the fuel cost of 326 million kWh/yr is Rs 260 million per considered in the figure.
year. Considering a pump life of 10 years, and a discount 9. This calculation assumes average pump usage of only 1,000 hr/yr (against the national
rate of 12% (real), the net present value of fuel saved is average of 1,770 hr/yr claimed by the power sector). It is further assumed that a base-
Rs. 1,470 million (US$ 42 million). This takes the cost- load power plant has a PLF of 80%, auxiliary consumption of 8% and T&D losses are
18%. The investment for generating plant and distribution network is assumed at Rs.
benefit ratio to 1:9! 50 million/MW (US$ 1.4 million/MW).
In other words, each year’s delay in improving the BIS 10. This assumes an incremental cost of (i) 20% for efficient pump (i.e. Rs 1,000/- per
standards for IPS efficiency is costing India US$ 115 mil- pump) and (ii) Rs 1,000 for higher sized pipe (corresponding to an average pipe length
lion! of 30m).
References
6. Conclusion Boothra, K.C., and Bajaj, N.K., 1994. ‘‘Energy conservation in agricultural electric pumping
system’’, National Seminar on Conservation of Energy in Agricultural Pumping Systems,
The BIS norms for pump set efficiency need substantial organised by Central Institute for Rural Electrification, Hyderabad, December.
improvements on the following accounts: (1) upward re- Boothra, K.C., and Bajaj, N.K., 1995. Presentation at MSEB, Bombay, October 21.
vision of minimum efficiency, (2) accounting for changing IS 10804:1994, ‘‘Indian Standard, Recommended pumping system for agricultural purposes
pump efficiency with changing suction and total head, (second revision)’’, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
(3) upward revision of recommended pipe sizes, and New Delhi.
(4) appropriate flange sizes for pumps. Jain, P.C., 1994, ‘‘Energy conservation awareness through high efficiency of utilisation in
pumping systems’’, National Seminar on Conservation of Energy in Agricultural Pumping
Contrary to the common belief, the improvements in Systems, December.
standards can result in substantial reduction in IPS elec- NABARD, 1984. ‘‘Pilot project studies for quality control of agricultural pumpsets’’, National
tricity consumption. Improvements in standards would re- Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Bombay.
sult in a 326 million kWh/yr reduction in electricity NABARD, 1991. ‘‘Report of the working group on lift irrigation schemes’’, Bombay.
consumption of the new IPS added each year. This NABARD, 1995. Personal communication from J.R. Khale, DGM (Technical), NABARD, De-
amounts to avoided capacity expansion of 61 MW each cember.
year. Each year’s delay in improving the BIS standards Patel, S.M., and Pandey, M.K., 1993. ‘‘Report on complete rectifications of agricultural
pumps in Gujarat state’’, Institute of Cooperative Management, Ahmedabad.
for agricultural pumps is costing India US$ 115 million.
Planning Commission, 1995. ‘‘Annual report on the working of the State Electricity Boards
The benefit would be higher if BIS standards were also and the Electricity Departments’’, Planning Commission, Government of India.
made mandatory for all pump manufacturers. Sant, G., and Dixit, S., 1996; ‘‘Analysis of electricity consumption of irrigation pumpsets in
The government, funding agencies, multilateral banks the state of Maharashtra’’, Report of PRAYAS project, under publication.
and the power sector, in general, need to appreciate the World Bank, 1996. Letter from Heinz Vergin, Director, India Country Department, to Peter
importance of standards and norms. Considering such fa- Bosshard, Berne Declaration, Switzerland, November 1.