Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report – April 2017 Page 1
cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd
Energy Audit Report
for
Gits Food Products Pvt Ltd
Pune, Maharashtra
Prepared by: Vivek Gilani Ashoka Fellow Environmental Engineer (E.I.T) BEE Certified Energy Auditor (EA-17177) Founder/ Director: cBalance Solutions Hub
Dhrumit Parikh M.Tech, Solar & Alternative Energy BEE Certified Energy Manager
Vishwajeet Poojary B. E. Mechanical Engineering In consultation with: M/s. Energetic Consulting Pvt Ltd
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 2
Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7
2 Project Scope .............................................................................................................. 7
3 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 9
4 Energy Audit Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 10
4.1 Baseline Performance Measurement ................................................................ 10
4.1.1 Grid Electrical Energy Consumption ..................................................... 13
4.1.2 Captive Power Generation (Diesel) ...................................................... 19
4.1.3 High Speed Diesel for Boilers ................................................................ 22
4.1.4 Plant Load Distribution and Area-Wise Energy Consumption Patterns 22
4.1.5 Power Factor ......................................................................................... 25
4.1.6 System-Wide Energy Performance Assessment & Energy Conservation Opportunities ............................................................................................. 27
4.1.6.1 Load Curve Management ......................................................... 27
4.1.6.2 Increase Contract Demand for CRTE plant .............................. 28
4.1.6.3 DG Set Energy Conservation Opportunities ............................. 30
4.2 Lighting System .................................................................................................. 33
4.2.1 Lighting System Performance Assessment ........................................... 33
4.2.2 Lighting Recommendations and Energy Conservation Opportunities . 40
4.2.2.1 ILER Improvement .................................................................... 40
4.2.2.2 Reduce Excess Illuminance ....................................................... 41
4.2.2.3 Replacement with LED Lights ................................................... 42
4.2.2.4 Other options for Lighting Energy Conservation ..................... 42
4.3 HVAC System ...................................................................................................... 43
4.3.1 AHU Performance Assessment ............................................................. 44
4.3.2 Cooling Towers ..................................................................................... 45
4.3.2.1 Cooling Tower Performance Assessment ................................ 45
4.3.2.2 Cooling Tower Energy Conservation Opportunities ................ 46
4.4 Boilers ................................................................................................................. 47
4.4.1 Boiler Performance Assessment ........................................................... 47
4.4.1.1 Thermal Efficiency and Loading Assessment ........................... 47
4.4.1.2 Energy and Efficiency Loss Assessment ................................... 51
4.4.2 Boiler & Steam System Recommendation and Energy Conservation Opportunities ............................................................................................. 53
4.4.2.1 Thermal Efficiency Enhancement ............................................ 53
4.4.2.2 Fuel Saving Device - FLUX Maxiox ............................................ 54
4.4.2.3 Alternate Fuel (Bio-diesel) ....................................................... 55
4.4.2.4 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD ....................................... 56
4.4.2.5 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with Bio-diesel .............................. 57
4.5 Compressed Air System ...................................................................................... 59
4.5.1 GRTE and CRTE Compressed Air System Assessment .......................... 59
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 3
4.5.2 Energy Conservation Opportunity in Compressor System ................... 64
4.5.2.1 Lowering the Air Intake Temperature ...................................... 64
4.5.2.2 Lowering the Set Pressure ....................................................... 65
4.5.2.3 Waste Heat Recovery ............................................................... 66
4.6 Miscellaneous ..................................................................................................... 68
4.6.1 IDEC at Dryer Section (GRTE Plant) for Comfort Cooling ..................... 68
4.6.2 Solar PV at GRTE Plant .......................................................................... 69
4.6.3 Atmospheric Vacuum Dryer ................................................................. 69
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 71
6 Appendix ................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix I-A .................................................................................................... 76
Appendix I-B .................................................................................................... 76
Appendix II ...................................................................................................... 77
Appendix III-A .................................................................................................. 78
Appendix III-B .................................................................................................. 78
Appendix IV ..................................................................................................... 79
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 4
List of Tables Table 1 Annual Energy Use Summary – Plant wise ....................................................................... 10
Table 2 Annual Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined .................................................... 10
Table 3 GHG Emission Factors and Inventory – Energy................................................................. 12
Table 4 Tariff Structure for GRTE and CRTE................................................................................... 13
Table 5 Time-of-Day (TOD) Structure ............................................................................................ 14
Table 6 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Plant-wise ................................................. 17
Table 7 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined ............................... 18
Table 8 DG Set Summary ............................................................................................................... 21
Table 9 Boiler Fuel Consumption & Steam Generation Summary ................................................ 22
Table 10 Feeder Assessment Time Duration ................................................................................. 22
Table 11 Power Factor Trends ....................................................................................................... 25
Table 12 TOD Losses / Gain Summary ........................................................................................... 28
Table 13 Monthly Maximum & Excess Demand (CRTE) ................................................................ 28
Table 14 Estimated Savings from Increased Contracted Demand at CRTE ................................... 29
Table 15 Saving Estimates through Fuel Saving Device in DG Sets - FLUX Maxiox ....................... 30
Table 16 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives in DG Sets ............................................................................. 31
Table 17 Lighting System –Illuminance Assessment for CRTE Plant ............................................. 34
Table 18 Lighting System – Illuminance Assessment for GRTE Plant ............................................ 35
Table 19 Lamp Efficiency Metrics .................................................................................................. 36
Table 20 Fixture-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary.................................... 36
Table 21 Plant-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary ...................................... 37
Table 22 Target lux/W/m2 as a function of Room Index .............................................................. 38
Table 23 ILER Color Code ............................................................................................................... 38
Table 24 ILER Assessment ............................................................................................................. 39
Table 25 Energy and Cost Savings from ILER Improvement .......................................................... 40
Table 26 Energy and Cost Saving by Reducing the Lighting Fixtures............................................. 41
Table 27 Lighting Environmental and Cost Savings Estimate from Equipment Replacement ...... 42
Table 28 HVAC System – Fresh-Air Ventilation AHUs Performance Assessment.......................... 44
Table 29 Cooling Tower Rated and Measured Performance Overview ........................................ 46
Table 30 Cooling tower heat load and losses details .................................................................... 46
Table 31 Shutting Down the cooling Tower – Energy and Cost Saving Estimates ........................ 46
Table 32 Boiler Efficiency Trials - Performance Parameters ......................................................... 49
Table 33 High Speed Diesel - Fuel Analysis Results ....................................................................... 51
Table 34 Boiler Operation Parameters for ‘Indirect Method’ ....................................................... 51
Table 35 Scenarios for boiler performance estimation ................................................................. 52
Table 36 Boiler Losses for different scenarios - GRTE ................................................................... 52
Table 37 Boiler losses for different scenarios - CRTE .................................................................... 52
Table 38 Examination of losses in GRTE Boiler .............................................................................. 53
Table 39 Examination of losses in CRTE Boiler .............................................................................. 53
Table 40 Boiler Efficiency Enhancement Savings Estimate ........................................................... 54
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 5
Table 41 Saving Estimates through Fuel Saving Device- FLUX Maxiox .......................................... 55
Table 45 Savings from use of bio-diesel ........................................................................................ 55
Table 43 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD .............................................................................. 56
Table 44 Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with Bio-diesel ....................................................................... 57
Table 45 Compressor Rated Details .............................................................................................. 60
Table 46 Field Measurement Data ................................................................................................ 60
Table 47 Compressor Efficiency Analysis ...................................................................................... 61
Table 48 De-Rating of Air Compressors ......................................................................................... 63
Table 49 Velocity Assessment Based on Piping Size ..................................................................... 64
Table 50 Energy Savings by lowering the air intake temperature................................................. 64
Table 51 Pressure drops and power losses for different pipe sizes .............................................. 65
Table 52 Savings Summary by Reducing Delivery Pressure .......................................................... 65
Table 53 Waste Heat available for recovery ................................................................................. 66
Table 54 Estimated drying (washing machine) energy saved ....................................................... 67
Table 58 Indirect Direct Evaporative Cooler in Dryer Section ....................................................... 69
Table 59 Solar PV at GRTE Plant .................................................................................................... 69
Table 57 Overall Conservation Summary from Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy .............. 71
Table 58 Energy Efficiency Roadmap Projects & Marginal Abatement Costs Summary............... 73
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 6
List of Figures Figure 1 Annual Energy Use Distribution (MJ basis) ...................................................................... 11
Figure 2 Annual Energy Cost Distribution (INR basis).................................................................... 11
Figure 3 Annual Energy Source GHG Emissions Distribution (MT CO2e basis) .............................. 13
Figure 4 Monthly Electricity Consumption .................................................................................... 15
Figure 5 Monthly Electricity Cost .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 6 Monthly Power Demand - GRTE ...................................................................................... 18
Figure 7 Monthly Power Demand - CRTE ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 8 DG Sets Running Hours .................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9 DG Sets Diesel Consumption ........................................................................................... 20
Figure 10 DG Sets Energy Generation ........................................................................................... 21
Figure 11 GRTE Power Consumption Highlights ............................................................................ 23
Figure 12 GRTE Power Consumption Trend .................................................................................. 23
Figure 13 CRTE Power Consumption Highlights ............................................................................ 24
Figure 14 CRTE Power Consumption trend ................................................................................... 24
Figure 15 GRTE Power Factor Highlights ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 16 GRTE Power Factor Trend .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 17 CRTE Power Factor Highlights ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 18 CRTE Power Factor trend ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 19 Lighting Load Fixture Type-wise Distribution ................................................................ 36
Figure 20 Benchmark Boiler Dynamic Efficiency % vs. Heat Load % Curve ................................... 50
Figure 21 Schematic diagram of compressors - GRTE ................................................................... 60
Figure 22 Relative Free Air Delivery (%) ........................................................................................ 63
Figure 23 Heat Loss Diagram for Compressor ............................................................................... 66
Figure 24 Drying of laundry using waste heat from compressors ................................................. 67
Figure 25 MAC Curve for Energy Conservation Opportunities at Gits Food ................................. 72
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 7
1 Introduction
cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (India) was contracted by Gits Food Products Pvt. Ltd. to conduct an energy audit, as the primary step of an objective to optimize the energy consumption and reduce the environmental impact of operations at the plant.
The overarching objectives of the exercise were to:
• Determine the energy and related cost conservation potential for Gits Food Manufacturing Unit based on technological interventions
• Determine the energy and related cost conservation potential based on architectural interventions (especially related to building envelope/Air Conditioned space insulation)
• Determine the electrical energy cost reduction potential based on operational process changes (related to reorganizing the scheduling of energy consuming activities)
• Establish the comparative financial feasibility of proposed alternatives on a life-cycle cost basis
Additionally, cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd. determined the GHG mitigation potential for the proposed alternatives to reduce the overall Carbon Footprint of Gits Food Unit (Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions). This assessment culminates in a macro-level Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) Analysis.
2 Project Scope
MAC Curves: An enterprise-specific Marginal GHG Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) analysis is
a key component of an institutionalized Sustainability Strategy. It is designed to discover the
most cost-effective means of mitigating climate change impact through technological
interventions or modifications in management practices. It is a vital decision-support input
for planning capital expenditure on Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, Waste Reduction
& Management etc. projects in a manner that safeguards the financial sustainability of the
Organization while achieving tangible environmental and socio-economic sustainability
benefits for the planetary ecosystem. The idea is to harvest the low-hanging fruits first,
accumulate the economic benefits from these no-regret options and then steps through
more challenging interventions. In this way, it reduces financial risk and ensures longevity of
the environmental program at large.
MACC Methodology: Costs and benefits are calculated based on real values of financial
parameters such as inflation, interest rates, cost of electricity, energy etc. and resource
conservation benefits of options reflect the enhancement in technological alternatives
available over time.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 8
The geographical scope of the project comprised execution of a detailed thermal and electrical energy audit of both plants, Gits Ready To Eat (GRTE) and Cofco Ready To Eat (CRTE), of Gits Food Products Pvt. Ltd. in Hadapsar (Pune, Maharashtra, India) over 5-days, beginning 22nd August 2016 through 26th August 2016.
The systems studied and assessed as part of the energy audit and conservation strategy devising process included the following:
• Boiler Systems
• Compressors
• Air Handling Units
• Cooling Towers
• Diesel Generator Sets
• Lighting Systems: TFL Lights, CFL Bulbs and LED lights
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 9
3 Methodology
The field measurement methodology adopted included the following processes and equipment:
• Digital Power Analyzer: for verifying total connected electrical load of both the
Industrial buildings (kW), the overall system Power Factor (PF), and other parameters
including total current drawn (A) and Voltage (V), and measuring electrical parameters
of compressors, utilities and major process equipment - to establish baseline system
performance.
• MECO Clamp-On Meter: for measuring electrical parameters of individual equipment -
to establish baseline system performance.
• Lutron Luxmeter: for measuring lux levels on the working planes of the workspaces and
human occupancy areas.
• Lutron Anemometer: for measuring flow rate (velocity) of condenser cooling air exiting
the outdoor-units to determine the performance of Air Handling Units and Cooling
Towers.
• Psychrometer: for measuring the dry bulb temperature (DBT) and wet bulb temperature
(WBT) of the ambient air and supply side or cooled air to establish the enthalpy change
across the condensers of the outdoor units.
• Measuring Tape: to measure the diameter of outdoor unit fans to convert air velocity
into mass flow rate, to measure the dimensions of filters of Air Handling Units.
• Combustion analyzer: to measure flue gas concentrations and gas temperature.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 10
4 Energy Audit Data Analysis Following color coding has been used for the data interpretation in tables:
Color Data Interpretation
Rated or Derived Values
On-field Measured Values
Calculated Values based on Rated/Derived and On-field Measured Values
Calculated Summation/ Total
4.1 Baseline Performance Measurement The two plants (GRTE and CRTE) consume energy in the following forms
✓ High Speed Diesel for Boilers
✓ High Speed Diesel for Captive Power Generation (DG Sets)
✓ Grid Electricity for Plant Processes, Plant Utilities & Lighting.
The following sections of the report present an overview of the patterns related to these forms
of energy consumption.
The overall annual energy use distribution in terms of energy value (Gigajoules - GJ) and cost
(INR) amongst the above-mentioned fuels has been presented in the tables and charts below.
Table 1 Annual Energy Use Summary – Plant wise
Plant Details Annual Consumption
Units Annual Energy Use (GJ)
Annual Cost (INR in Lakhs)
GRTE Grid Electricity 11,71,447 kWh 4,217 101
GRTE Diesel 78,662 Litres 3,488 42.5
GRTE Total 7,706 143
CRTE Grid Electricity 2,11,107 kWh 760 20.9
CRTE Diesel 42,897 Litres 1,902 23.2
CRTE Total 2,662 44.1
Table 2 Annual Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined
Source Annual Consumption
Units Annual Energy Use (GJ)
Annual Cost (INR in Lakhs)
Specific Energy Cost (INR/TJ)
Grid Electricity 13,82,555 kWh 4,978 122 24,46,802
Diesel 1,21,558 Litres 5,390 65.7 12,19,686
Total 10,368 187
The cost basis for converting annual energy consumption to annual energy cost for each type of
energy source is presented above alongside the fuel type. The overall energy use distribution
assessment indicates that across both plants, both fuel sources Grid Electricity and High Speed
Diesel contribute evenly to the end-use-energy on a net calorific value basis, contributing 48%
and 52% of the annual energy use of 10,368 Giga Joules (GJ). The cost distribution across fuels
portrays a different pattern though, with electricity contributing to 65% to the total energy cost
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 11
of INR 1.9 crores which covers both the plants. High Speed Diesel cost accounts for a relatively
lower 35% of the annual energy cost while providing 52% of the annual energy on a calorific
value basis. Specific cost analysis (Cost per unit energy generated) indicates that Grid Electricity
is twice as costly as High Speed Diesel. These numbers imply that High Speed Diesel (HSD) is a
more cost-effective fuel. Additionally, plant-wise analysis of energy consumption showed that at
GRTE, Grid Electricity accounted for 70% of the energy cost with the remaining 30% being spent
on HSD. The same analysis at CRTE led to the information that Grid Electricity accounted for 47%
of the energy costs incurred at that plant while HSD accounted for the remaining 53%. These
numbers throw light on the relative dependencies on HSD as a fuel at both the plants. At CRTE,
the boilers represent a major energy sink, exacting close to 68% of the total energy demand of
the plant. While at GRTE, the equipment running on HSD (mainly boilers and DG sets), only
demand 45% of the total energy requirement. The overarching intelligence gathered from this
macro analysis is that grid electricity use exerts a higher influence on the total energy used by
the GRTE Plant (70% of the total energy consumption) and therefore warrants a higher priority
compared to thermal energy use in the energy audit and energy conservation roadmap
development process. Whereas for CRTE, equal priority for both Grid Electricity and HSD
generated energy is necessitated in the energy conservation process.
Figure 1 Annual Energy Use Distribution (MJ basis)
Figure 2 Annual Energy Cost Distribution (INR basis)
GRTE Grid Electricity41%
GRTE Diesel34%
CRTE Grid Electricity
7%
CRTE Diesel18%
GITS Energy Audit - Plant Wise Annual Energy Use Distribution (GJ Basis)
GRTE Grid Electricity
GRTE Diesel
CRTE Grid Electricity
CRTE Diesel
Annual Energy Usage = 10,368 GJ
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 12
The relative and total impacts of fossil and electrical energy consumption on the Direct and
Indirect (Scope 2) GHG Emissions of the plant are presented in the tables and charts below.
Table 3 GHG Emission Factors and Inventory – Energy
Energy Source GHG Emission Factor Units GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year)
GHG Emissions (Kg CO2e/TJ)
Grid Electricity 1.35 kg CO2e/kWh 1,868 3,75,190
Diesel (HSD) 2.66 kg CO2e/liter 323 74,3931
Total
The analysis indicates that the annual energy related GHG emissions for the plant are 2,191
metric tonnes of CO2e. The relative contribution of the emission sources is presented below. The
chart indicates that electricity related emissions are the most significant contributor to the
plant’s energy related GHG emissions (85%) compared to High Speed Diesel used in boilers and
generator sets (15%). Further analysis indicates that High Speed Diesel has 5-times lesser
emissions per unit of energy generated compared to Grid Electricity, implying that HSD is a
cleaner fuel in terms of emissions to the atmosphere. Hence from a climate change mitigation
perspective, mitigating electricity consumption would be a higher priority relative to thermal
energy conservation.
1 Calculations based on Net Calorific Value (NCV) of fuel (HSD)
GRTE Grid Electricity54%
GRTE Diesel23%
CRTE Grid Electricity
11%
CRTE Diesel12%
GITS Energy Audit - Plant Wise Annual Energy Cost Distribution (INR Basis)
GRTE Grid Electricity
GRTE Diesel
CRTE Grid Electricity
CRTE Diesel
Annual Energy Cost = INR 1,87,54,568
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 13
The key knowledge from the above analyses is that use of HSD in thermal applications is
recommended over the use of Grid Electricity, since it is both cost effective and cleaner
compared to Grid Electricity.
Figure 3 Annual Energy Source GHG Emissions Distribution (MT CO2e basis)
4.1.1 Grid Electrical Energy Consumption
Grid Electricity is provided to both GRTE and CRTE sites from Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. GRTE/RTC has HT-I N Time of Day (TOD) tariff and CRTE has LT-V B II
Time of Day (TOD) tariff. Table 4 presents details of the tariff structure applicable for the GRTE
and CRTE Units. Details of incentives from the Time-Of-Day (TOD) Structure can be seen in Table
5.
Table 4 Tariff Structure for GRTE and CRTE
Plant Name GRTE/RTC CRTE Units
Commercial Tariff (N.T) HT-I N LT- V B II
Contracted Demand (N.T) 700 100 KVA
Mini. Billed (% of Contracted Demand) 50% 50%
Conventional Demand Charges 220 150 INR/KVA
Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges 150% 150%
Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges 330 225 INR/KVA
kWh Charges 6.71 6.98 INR/Unit
GRTE Grid Electricity72%
GRTE Diesel10%
CRTE Grid Electricity13%
CRTE Diesel5%
GITS Energy Audit - Plant Wise GHG Emissions Distribution (MT CO₂e Basis)
GRTE Grid Electricity
GRTE Diesel
CRTE Grid Electricity
CRTE Diesel
Annual GHG Emission = 2,191 MT CO₂e
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 14
Electricity Duty 9.30% 9.30%
Tax on sale 0.09 0.09 INR/Unit
Conventional Demand Charges (Old tariff) 190 130 INR/KVA
Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges (Old tariff)
150% 150%
Excess Demand Charge w.r.t Conventional Demand Charges (Old tariff)
285 195 INR/KVA
KWH Charges (Old tariff) 6.33 7.01 INR/Unit
Electricity Duty (Old tariff) 9.30% 9.00%
Tax on sale (old tariff) 0.08 0.08 INR/Unit
Table 5 Time-of-Day (TOD) Structure
Details Zone A (22:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs)
Zone B (06:00 hrs to 09:00 hrs & 12:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs)
Zone C (09:00 hrs to 12:00 hrs)
Zone D (18:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs)
Incentive / Disincentive (INR/ kWh)
-1.5 0 0.8 1.1
Baseline electrical energy consumption was determined through a review of the electricity bills
paid by the facility over a 19-month period (January 2015 to July 2016) for the GRTE plant and
over a 20-month period (January 2015 to August 2016) for the CRTE plant.
Figure 4 shows the monthly electricity consumption in kWh of both the plants. The maximum
electricity consumption (both plants combined) was 1,52,382 units recorded in October 2015.
The minimum electricity consumption 86,862 units recorded in November 2015. The average
monthly consumption of 1,15,213 kWh/month can be taken as present energy benchmark and
the goal of the energy conservation process, the ultimate desired outcome of the Energy Audit
process, is to identify possibilities for reducing this benchmark energy consumption to the
greatest extent feasible. Figure 5 shows the monthly electricity charges paid to Maharashtra
State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. New tariffs for both HT and LT consumers came into
effect from July 2015. The contracted demand for the GRTE Unit was increased from 450 kVA to
700 kVA from June 2015. The maximum monthly electricity charge was INR 13,59,254 paid in
October 2015. The minimum monthly electricity charge was INR 7,94,990 paid in June 2015. The
average monthly electricity charge for both plants was calculated to be INR 10,66,214. The
normalized average electricity charge for the manufacturing unit is calculated by dividing the
total annual electricity cost (energy charges – INR 96,41,298) with the total energy (in kWh)
used. This was calculated to be 6.71 INR/kWh for GRTE and 7.23 INR/kWh for CRTE. Their
average which comes to 6.97 INR/kWh was used as the basis of all energy cost saving modeling
activities conducted for the project. It has to be noted that the total annual electrical energy
cost (including fixed charges, demand charges etc.) was INR 1,27,94,562 and the resultant gross
electricity cost per kWh was therefore 9.25 INR/kWh. This value however has only academic
significance with respect to energy savings calculations as it does not truly specifically address
the energy cost but rather the total cost of supply. The above analysis has been summarized in
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 15
Table 6 and Table 7 below. Other relevant details of the energy bills have been presented in
Appendix I-A and Appendix I-BError! Reference source not found..
Figure 4 Monthly Electricity Consumption
2
Figure 5 Monthly Electricity Cost
2 The bills for the month of August 2015 for GRTE plant and the months of May 2015 and August 2015 for CRTE plant were unavailable and hence, remain unrepresented in the charts.
8795 95 91
100
71
103
0
125137
65
100
7791
101 105113
88
114
19
21 15 16 -
21
19
-
21
16
22
16
16
19
20 16
13
18
21
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Elec
tric
ity
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (k
Wh
)
Thou
sand
s
Monthly
Monthly Electricity Consumption (kWh/month)
GRTE_Electricity Consumption (kWh/month) CRTE_Electricity Consumption (kWh/month)
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 16
The tables below show the demand recorded per month. The average recorded demand per
month for the GRTE plant was 456 kVA and for the CRTE plant was 83 kVA. The average billed
demand per month at the GRTE plant hasn’t exceed the contracted demand ever since the
contracted demand has been increased to 700 kVA. For the CRTE plant however, when
compared with the contracted/sanctioned demand of 100 kVA, the excess average maximum
demand per month was estimated to be 27.1 kVA. The monetary impact of this routine practice
of exceeding contract demand leads to an average monthly penalty charge of 5,950 INR/Month
stemming from a penalty charge of INR 225 per kVA of excess demand. A consistent excess
demand of 34 kVA has been observed and it has been learnt from the concerned authority
during the audit that the company was in the process of applying for a higher contracted
demand (140 kVA) which should resolve this issue. The total excess demand charge during the
analyzed 18-month period amounts to INR 1,07,100 which represents 3.4% of the total energy
cost for the CRTE plant.
2.1 2.21.5 1.5
0.0
1.9 1.8 1.9 1.52.2 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.0
8.0 7.68.3 7.9
6.8
6.1
8.8
10.7 12.1
6.2
9.0
6.7
7.98.6 9.3 10.2
7.8
9.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Ele
ctri
city
Co
st (I
NR
)
Lakh
s
Monthly
Monthly Electricity Cost (INR/month)
CRTE_Electricity Cost (INR/month) GRTE_Electricity Cost (INR/month)
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 17
Table 6 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Plant-wise
Detail
GRTE CRTE
Units All Charges Included
Only Energy Charges
All Charges Included
Only Energy Charges
Average Monthly Energy Consumption
97,621 17,592 kWh/month
Annual Energy Consumption
11,71,447 2,11,107 kWh/year
Average Monthly Demand
456 83 kVA
Average Monthly Load
456 79 kW
Average Monthly Excess Demand
0.28 27 kVA
Average Monthly Excess Demand Charges
79 5,950 INR/month
Annual Excess Demand Charge
950 71,400 INR/year
Annual Excess Demand Charge %
0.0% 3.4% %
Average Specific Energy Cost
8.61 6.71 9.89 7.23 INR/kWh
Average Monthly Energy Cost
8,40,979 6,55,278 1,74,055 1,27,273 INR/month
Annual Energy Cost 1,00,91,751 78,63,336 20,88,656 15,27,273 INR/year
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 18
Table 7 Annual and Monthly Energy Use Summary – Both plants combined
Detail All Charges Included Only Energy Charges Units
Avg. Monthly Energy Consumption 1,15,213 kWh/month
Annual Energy Consumption 13,82,555 kWh/year
Avg. Monthly Load 535 kVA
Avg. Specific Energy Cost 9.25 6.97 INR/kWh
Avg. Monthly Energy Cost 10,66,214 8,03,441 INR/month
Annual Energy Cost 1,27,94,562 96,41,298 INR/year
Annual Equivalent Thermal Energy 4,978 GJ/year
Figure 6 Monthly Power Demand - GRTE
5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Po
we
r D
em
an
d (
kV
A)
Month
Monthly Power Demand - GRTE
Contracted Demand (kVA) Excess Demand (kVA)
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 19
Figure 7 Monthly Power Demand - CRTE
4.1.2 Captive Power Generation (Diesel)
Captive Power Generation at the Gits Food Products Manufacturing Unit is accomplished by two
Diesel Generator (DG) sets of capacities 600 kVA and 125 kVA located in GRTE and CRTE
respectively. DG sets are employed as backup power sources during power outages. Figure 8
presents the historical usage data (from Jan 2016 to July 2016) for the DG Sets and indicates that
DG sets run for approximately 13 hours per month at GRTE and approximately 12 hours per
month at CRTE. Figure 9Figure 9 and Figure 10 provide details of diesel consumption and energy
(kWh) generation by the DG Sets over the 7-month period. The total diesel consumption
recorded over the 7-month period by both the DG sets was 7,008 Liters which led to generation
of 19,476 kWh. The average energy generated per liter of diesel was thus 2.78 kWh/liter.
Additional details related to DG set usage and diesel consumption etc. have been provided in
Appendix II.
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 18 18 18 18 18 20 2034 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160P
ow
er
De
man
d (k
VA
)
Month
Monthly Power Demand - CRTE
Contracted Demand (kVA) Excess Demand (kVA)
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 20
Figure 8 DG Sets Running Hours
Figure 9 DG Sets Diesel Consumption
1.1 5.7 4.3 5.8
14.0
30.8 30.0
12.6 3.0 4.5
24.1 6.6
18.0
13.0
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16
DG
Se
ts o
pe
rati
on
al h
ou
rs/m
on
th
Month
DG Sets - Running Hours
GRTE (600 KVA) [hrs] CRTE (125 kVA) [hrs]
121 330
469 568
923
1,551
1,907
31
9
87
27
213
321
451
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16
Die
sel c
on
sum
ed
(lit
ers)
Month
DG Sets - Diesel Consumption
GRTE (liters) CRTE (liters)
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 21
Figure 10 DG Sets Energy Generation
Table 8 summarizes the analysis of DG sets. Table 8 DG Set Summary
DG ID No GRTE (600 kVA) CRTE (125 kVA)
Model Cummins Kirloskar
Compression Ratio 14.1 16.1
Exhaust Temperature @100% loading (deg C)
453 N/A3
Exhaust Temperature @60% loading (deg C)
325 N/A
Rated Output kWe@ 100% load 500 N/A
Rated Fuel Consumption (ltrs/hr) @ 100% load
123.9 N/A
Average Diesel Consumption (ltr/month)
838 163
Average hours in operation (hrs/month)
13.1 11.7
Average Electricity Generated per month (kWh/month)
2,654 128
Average Power Output (kW) 212 11.0
Specific Fuel Consumption (ltrs/kWh) 0.39 1.70
Average Diesel Cost (INR/month) 54.1 54.1
Average Fuel Cost (INR/month) 45,336 8,818
3 Data unavailable in Kirloskar brochure for the corresponding DG set
200 800
1,220 1,800
2,240
5,180
7,140
24
24
24
20
68
296
440
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16
Ene
rgy
Ge
ne
rate
d (k
Wh
)
Month
DG Sets - Energy Generation (kWh)
GRTE (kWh) CRTE (kWh)
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 22
4.1.3 High Speed Diesel for Boilers
In this section, an overview of the consumption of high speed diesel for boiler operation has
been presented. The cost of steam generation was determined through fuel consumption
measurement and recording the corresponding steam generation. The fuel and water levels in
the respective storage tanks were measured for a test period to calculate the fuel consumption
and steam generation for boilers in both the plants. The trials conducted yield an average cost of
3.91 INR/kg of steam. In the absence of sophisticated and accurate weighing systems available
on site, it is likely that the trial data may deviate from actual operational performance.
Table 9 Boiler Fuel Consumption & Steam Generation Summary
Boiler ID Annual Fuel Consumption [lts/year]
Annual Fuel Cost [INR/year]
Annual Steam Generation [kg/year]
Cost of Steam (INR/ kg)
Boiler GRTE 46,810 25,31,612 6,61,436 3.83
Boiler CRTE 40,942 22,14,256 5,54,660 3.99
Total 87,752 47,45,868 12,16,096 3.91
4.1.4 Plant Load Distribution and Area-Wise Energy Consumption Patterns
While understanding the cumulative energy consumption of the physical plant units was vital, it
was of even greater significance to dissect this total energy consumption across energy
consuming systems and sub-systems to identify the key energy consuming hotspots to be able
to integrate them into an energy conservation plan for the plant. In addition to understanding
the average energy consumption profile per month, power analysis equipment (ALM 32 – Digital
Power Analysis Equipment) was deployed for gauging diurnal patterns of energy consumption
i.e. the magnitude and periods of occurrence of maximum and minimum power demand.
The date and time durations of assessment for the main incomers of both GRTE and CRTE plants
have been mentioned in Table 10.
Table 10 Feeder Assessment Time Duration
Feeder ID Date Time Duration
Main Incomer – GRTE 22nd August 2016 17 hours
Main Incomer – CRTE 25th August 2016 23 Hours
The maximum and minimum active power consumption 476.3 kW and 43.0 kW were recorded
on 22nd August 2016 at 14:10 hrs and 23rd August 2016 at 00:40 hrs in GRTE plant and 139.6 kW
and 8.894 W (0.00889 kW) was recorded on 25th August 2016 at 12:16 hrs and 23:02 hrs in CRTE
Plant. The maximum total power consumption (kVA) were recorded to be 477.9 kW and 141.0
kW. The power factor at maximum power consumption (kW/kVA) was 0.996 for GRTE and 0.99
for CRTE. The power measurement highlights and trends for both incomers have been shown in
the figures below.
4 Lowest non-zero value considered as minimum
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 23
Figure 11 GRTE Power Consumption Highlights
Figure 12 GRTE Power Consumption Trend
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 24
Figure 13 CRTE Power Consumption Highlights
Figure 14 CRTE Power Consumption trend
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 25
4.1.5 Power Factor
Average PF for the GRTE Unit as per historical data is 1.00 and for the CRTE Unit is 0.96. The
Utility Power Company charges penalty for PF violation only if the PF is below 0.90. The power
factor values are satisfactory and do not need considerable improvement.
The recorded values from past bills have been summarized in Table 11 below.
Table 11 Power Factor Trends
Assessment of results obtained from measurement using power analyzers showed that the
maximum and minimum power factors 0.997 and 0.447 were recorded on 22nd August 2016 at
16:05 hrs and 23rd August 2016 at 04:00 hrs respectively at the GRTE plant. At the CRTE Plant,
the maximum and minimum power factors 0.998 and 0.1075 were recorded on 26th August 2016
at 05:32 hrs and 07:22 hrs respectively. The power factor measurement highlights and trends for
both incomers have been shown in the figures below.
5 Least non-zero value considered as minimum Power Factor
Month Recorded PF. @ GRTE Recorded PF. @ CRTE
Aug-16 - 0.954
Jul-16 1.000 0.963
Jun-16 1.000 0.954
May-16 1.000 0.957
Apr-16 1.000 0.957
Mar-16 1.000 0.957
Feb-16 0.998 0.956
Jan-16 0.999 0.955
Dec-15 0.999 0.953
Nov-15 0.995 0.960
Oct-15 1.000 0.957
Sep-15 1.000 0.958
Aug-15 - -
Jul-15 1.000 0.960
Jun-15 1.000 0.959
May-15 1.000 -
Apr-15 1.000 0.969
Mar-15 1.000 0.960
Feb-15 1.000 0.967
Jan-15 1.000 0.961
Average 1.000 0.959
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 26
Figure 15 GRTE Power Factor Highlights
Figure 16 GRTE Power Factor Trend
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 27
Figure 17 CRTE Power Factor Highlights
Figure 18 CRTE Power Factor trend
4.1.6 System-Wide Energy Performance Assessment & Energy Conservation
Opportunities
4.1.6.1 Load Curve Management
The most overarching analysis conducted during the Energy Audit related to the potential for
reducing energy cost for the Client without any additional expenditure on equipment or
modifying operation processes. This is in recognition of the fact that rescheduling energy
consuming activities which afford flexibility to occur during off-peak hours can lead to direct
savings through alignment with the TOD tariff incentive time-table. As presented earlier, the
TOD tariff structure incentivizes energy consumption during the “off-peak” hours of 10 pm to 6
am. The analysis of possible energy cost conservation opportunities has been presented below.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 28
Table 12 TOD Losses / Gain Summary
TOD Details Zone A (22:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs)
Zone B (06:00 hrs to 09:00 hrs & 12:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs)
Zone C (09:00 hrs to 12:00 hrs)
Zone D (18:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs)
Incentive / Disincentive (INR/ kWh)
-1.5 0 .80 1.1
GRTE Unit Consumption (kWh/year)
1,75,444 5,91,578 2,55,944 1,48,488
CRTE Unit Consumption (kWh/year)
24,995 1,16,449 60,484 9,183
Loss / Gain during the Period (INR) GRTE
2,63,166 (Gain) 0 2,04,755 (Loss) 1,63,337 (Loss)
Loss / Gain during the Period (INR) CRTE
37,492 (Gain) 0 48,387 (Loss) 10,101 (Loss)
Based on the above analysis, it was calculated that the Client currently bears an increased
energy cost of INR 2.8 Lakhs (GRTE and CRTE combined) approximately annually due to energy
consumption during peak periods of 9 am to 12 pm and 6 pm to 10 pm. Conversely, the plant
benefits in the range of approximately INR 3 Lakhs by consuming close to 2 Lakh kWh out of the
annual consumption of 13.8 Lakh kWh during the ‘incentivized period’ of 10 pm to 6 am. While
it might not be possible to shift many of the operations (1. since it’s batch production and 2.
since it would jeopardize the safety of workers working during late hours) to off-peak hours, it
would be beneficial to identify all possible activities that can be re-scheduled to take advantage
of TOD tariff incentives. A simple analysis indicates that transferring even 15% of the peak-
period demand (from Zone C 9:00 to 12:00 hrs and Zone D 18:00 to 22:00 hrs) to the 10 pm to 6
am period would save INR 1.7 lakhs annually6.
4.1.6.2 Increase Contract Demand for CRTE plant
The contract demand of the CRTE Plant at the time of the audit was 100 kVA/month while the
maximum demand recorded consistently touched 134 kVA. Table 13 presents a summary of the
recorded Maximum Monthly Demand across an 18-month period with the excess demand
charges paid per month; other details pertaining to monthly energy consumption, power drawn
etc. are presented in Error! Reference source not found..
Table 13 Monthly Maximum & Excess Demand (CRTE)
Month Tariff Contract Demand (kVA)
Max. Billed Demand (kVA)
Recorded PF
Excess Demand (kVA)
Excess Demand Charges (INR)
Aug-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.954 34 13,050
Jul-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.963 34 13,050
Jun-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.954 34 13,050
6 INR 1.7 Lakhs/year was calculated by summation of the financial benefit of shifting 15% of the Zone C and Zone D energy consumption to Zone A.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 29
May-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.957 34 13,050
Apr-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.957 34 13,050
Mar-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.957 34 13,050
Feb-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.956 34 13,050
Jan-16 LT-V B II 100 134 0.955 34 13,050
Dec-15 LT-V B II 100 134 0.953 34 13,050
Nov-15 LT-V B II 100 134 0.960 34 13,050
Oct-15 LT-V B II 100 120 0.957 20 11,700
Sep-15 LT-V B II 100 120 0.958 20 11,700
Aug-15 LT-V B II 100
Jul-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.960 18 11,550
Jun-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.959 18 10,010
May-15 LT-V B II 100
Apr-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.969 18 10,010
Mar-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.960 18 10,010
Feb-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.967 18 10,010
Jan-15 LT-V B II 100 118 0.961 18 10,010
Total 488 1,07,100
As mentioned in Section 4.1.1, the excess average maximum demand per month was found to
be 27.1 kVA. Above result shows that over an 18-month period,7 INR 1,07,100 was paid as a
penalty due to excess demand. It was learnt from the concerned authority during the audit that
the company was in the process of applying for a higher contracted demand (140 kVA) to fulfil
the consistent excess demand of 34 kVA, which should resolve this issue. By increasing contract
demand to 140 KVA, the plant can save approximately INR 70,211 per year (estimated by
comparing the payable amounts for the sample 18-month period using revised contracted
demand).
Table 14 Estimated Savings from Increased Contracted Demand at CRTE
Month Tariff New Contract Demand [kVA]
Max. Billed Demand [kVA]
Total Payable Charges (INR)
Estimated Savings (INR)
Aug-16 LT-V B II 140 134 95,813 8,361
Jul-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,95,052 8,361
Jun-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,74,175 8,361
May-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,27,756 8,361
Apr-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,52,303 8,361
Mar-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,80,620 8,361
Feb-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,73,328 8,361
7 Excluding the months of August 2015 and May 2015, details for which weren’t available for use in analysis
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 30
Jan-16 LT-V B II 140 134 1,49,642 8,361
Dec-15 LT-V B II 140 134 1,53,924 8,361
Nov-15 LT-V B II 140 134 2,06,646 8,361
Oct-15 LT-V B II 140 120 1,46,415 4,919
Sep-15 LT-V B II 140 120 1,87,557 4,919
Aug-15 LT-V B II 140 -
Jul-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,75,035 4,427
Jun-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,81,902 3,836
May-15 LT-V B II 140 -
Apr-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,46,465 3,826
Mar-15 LT-V B II 140 118 1,48,449 3,826
Feb-15 LT-V B II 140 118 2,16,855 3,826
Jan-15 LT-V B II 140 118 2,04,030 3,826
Average 1,67,554 5,851
Annual Average 20,10,643 70,211
4.1.6.3 DG Set Energy Conservation Opportunities
Fuel Saving Device - FLUX Maxiox
FLUX Maxiox is a magnetic device which generates a magnetic field that is rendered exactly perpendicular to the fuel flowing through the fuel line on which it is installed. This magnetic field is scientifically designed to impart certain physical changes in the fuel thereby causing the fuel to burn more efficiently.
In simplistic terms, FLUX Maxiox functions in two distinct ways:
1) The magnetic field of the device interacts with the hydrocarbon fuel to make oxygen react better with the fuel and thus renders the burning of the fuel more efficient.
2) The magnetic field physically changes the hydrogen part of the fuel into a higher energized isomer which gives more energy output for the same amount of fuel burnt, thereby giving considerable savings in the fuel consumed.
By installing FLUX Maxiox in both the DG sets (GRTE and CRTE), approximately 601 liters/year of high speed diesel can be saved which would lead to annual savings of 32,487 INR. The savings depend on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for the DG Sets at GRTE and CRTE. The estimations have been done using the existing usage pattern as a reference. The annual savings analysis by installing FLUX Maxiox has been presented in the table below.
Table 15 Saving Estimates through Fuel Saving Device in DG Sets - FLUX Maxiox
Parameter GRTE CRTE
Fuel Saving Device FLUX Maxiox FLUX Maxiox
Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1
Average Fuel Consumption - without FLUX Maxiox (ltrs/year) 10,062 1,952
Estimated Fuel Consumption – with FLUX Maxiox (ltrs/year) 9,559 1,855
Fuel Savings (%) 5% 5%
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 31
Annual Fuel Savings (Ltrs/year) 503 98
Fuel Cost - without FLUX Maxiox (INR/year) 5,44,156 1,05,587
Fuel Cost – with FLUX Maxiox (INR/year) 5,16,948 1,00,307
Capital Cost of FLUX Maxiox 1,44,000 72,000
Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 27,208 5,279
Payback Period (years) 5.29 13.6
Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 20.6 4.00
Use of KM+ Fuel Additives
KM+ instantly improves the quality of liquid fuel the moment it is mixed. It is non-toxic,
environmentally friendly and biodegradable. KM+ enables fuel to be dispersed to smaller fuel
droplets and speeds up the fuel burning process to completion before piston is in its upward
stroke. The key benefits of fast burning fuel are reduction in black smoke, toxic gases, wastage
of unburned fuel and reduction in greenhouse gas.
By adding recommended additives to the fuel, approximately 1,201 liters of high speed diesel per year can be saved which would lead to annual savings of 93,940 INR. The savings depend on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for the DG Sets at GRTE and CRTE. The estimations have been done using the existing usage pattern as a reference. The annual savings analysis by using fuel additives has been shown in Table 16 below.
Table 16 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives in DG Sets
Parameter GRTE CRTE
Fuel Saving Additives KM+ KM+
HSD Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1
Average Fuel Consumption – without additives (ltrs/year) 10,062 1,962
Fuel Savings 10% 10%
Estimated Fuel Consumption - with additives (ltrs/year) 9,055 1,757
Fuel Cost - without additives (INR/year) 5,44,156 1,05,587
Fuel Additive Cost (INR/ltr) 3,000 3,000
Fuel Additive Quantity (ltrs/year) 6.0 1.2
Cost of Fuel Additives (INR/year) 18,111 3,514
Fuel Cost – with additives (INR/year) 5,07,851 98,542
Annual Fuel Savings (ltrs/year) 1,006 195
Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 36,305 7,044
Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 41.2 8.00
Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Utilities
• Load Curve Management: Shifting even 15% of the peak-period demand (from Zone C
9:00 to 12:00 hrs and Zone D 18:00 to 22:00 hrs) to the incentivized period between
22:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs would save the plants INR 1.7 Lakhs annually.
• Increase Contract Demand from 100 kVA to 140 kVA: By increasing contract demand to
140 KVA, the plant can save approximately INR 0.70 lakhs annually.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 32
• Fuel Saving Device (FLUX Maxiox) in DG Sets: Installation of FLUX Maxiox would result in
fuel savings of 5% for each DG Set, with associated cost savings of INR 27,208 per year
and INR 5,279 per year for the GRTE and CRTE DG Sets respectively. The resultant energy
savings would be 20.6 GJ/year and 4.0 GJ/year respectively.
• Use of KM+ Fuel Additive in DG Sets: Adding the fuel additive with HSD would result in
fuel savings of 10% for each DG Set, leading to cost savings of INR 36,305 per year and
INR 7,044 per year for the DG Sets at GRTE and CRTE respectively. The annual energy
savings from this measure would be 41.2 GJ/year and 8.0 GJ/year respectively.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 33
4.2 Lighting System
4.2.1 Lighting System Performance Assessment
The lighting load across both the facilities is estimated to be 19.5 kW, of which 12% is from CRTE
plant and 88% is from GRTE. The lighting load represents approximately 3.6% of the average
monthly electrical load of both plants combined. Lighting is an essential service required by
occupants of indoor and outdoor spaces and is designed to perform a functional and aesthetic
role as per specific requirements that are addressed during the lighting system design phase.
The intensity levels (lux, lumens per m2 area) required by occupants vary with application and
area of usage. There are recommendations provided by the BEE to evaluate the efficacy of the
lighting installed in spaces as a function of use cases. The measured lux values across both
facilities are presented in Appendix III-A and Appendix III-B. The measured lux values were
compared with the recommended lux values8 and the resulting comparison for areas with higher
than required lux levels is presented in Table 17 below for major indoor areas of the facility.
8 IS 6665:1972, Bureau of Indian Standards, Code of Practice for Industrial Lighting and Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities - Chapter 3.8 Lighting System, Table 8.2.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 34
Table 17 Lighting System –Illuminance Assessment for CRTE Plant
Section Area Name Average Lux Level (Measured)
Lux Illumination Assessment
CRTE Pouching 60 Acceptable
CRTE Cabin (Retort Control Room) 75 Acceptable
CRTE Corridor 34 Acceptable
CRTE Retort Room 67 Acceptable
CRTE Maintenance 43 Acceptable
CRTE Crate Storage 131 Acceptable
CRTE Utensil washing area 140 Acceptable
CRTE Cooking section 121 Acceptable
CRTE Preparation Area 58 Acceptable
CRTE Refrigeration Area 38 Acceptable
CRTE Material Reception 32 Acceptable
CRTE Dry Material Store 36 Acceptable
CRTE Cabin 31 Acceptable
CRTE Process Section 31 Acceptable
CRTE Near main entrance - vegetable area
52 Acceptable
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 35
Table 18 Lighting System – Illuminance Assessment for GRTE Plant
Section Area Name Average Lux Level (Measured)
Lux Illumination Assessment
GRTE/RTC Mini Storage Space behind stairs
80 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Storage of Spices and laminate rolls
61 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Main storage space 32 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Main storage space 32 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Urad Dal Storage 61 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Dispatch Section 216 Not Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Lab (next to dispatch) 64 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Wrapping + Storage 60 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Export finished goods store 27 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC FFS 24 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Dryer and Mixer 41 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Dairymate section 168 Not Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Retort Section 166 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Pouching -GRTE 66 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) 58 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Preparation Section 55 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch)
93 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch)
107 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch)
107 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Entrance Lobby 159 Not Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Corridor/ Stairs 163 Not Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Admin Office - Reception Area 97 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Admin Office - Office area 30 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Around Manager’s Cabin 41 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Kitchen (QA lab) 98 Acceptable
GRTE/RTC Lab 2 32 Acceptable
GRTE/ RTC Manager’s Cabin 70 Acceptable
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 36
Lighting technology advancement since the advent of CFL, LED bulbs provide opportunities for
significant energy savings through equipment replacement. A listing of high energy efficiency
lighting devices and their respective efficiency attributes (lumens/watt) is provided in Table 19
below.
Table 19 Lamp Efficiency Metrics
Type Luminous Efficiency (Lumens/ Watt)
PL 60
FTL 25
Bulb 15
CFL 60
Halogen Spot Light 25
LED 75
T5 25
Metal Halide 75
Halogen FL 80
HPMV 50
Extensive field measurements with Lux Meters were carried out throughout the indoor spaces
of the facility and these measurements and primary analysis is tabulated in Appendix III-A and
Appendix III-B. A summary of the lighting fixture types that comprise the lighting load, the
respective load and their consequent energy consumption is presented in the Table 20 below.
Table 20 Fixture-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary
Fixture Type Application Qty. Load (kW) Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)
Energy Cost (INR/yr)
T5 Tube Indoor 566 16.1 56,250 5,20,554
CFL Indoor 134 2.46 8,614 79,719
LED Indoor 50 0.92 3,214 29,746
Total 750 19.5 68,079 6,30,019
The assessment indicates that the facility has 750 lighting fixtures leading to an annual energy
consumption of approximately 68.1 MWh of electricity with an energy cost of INR 6.3 lakhs per
year. In terms of annual energy consumption and annual energy cost, this represents
approximately 4.92% of the total energy consumed (kWh/year) and 6.53% of the energy bill paid
by Gits for both the plants.
This distribution of lighting load by fixture type is provided in Figure 19 below. It has been
observed that 82% of the lighting load is satisfied using T5 tubes.
Figure 19 Lighting Load Fixture Type-wise Distribution
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 37
The assessment also allowed for lighting load to be determined per plant. Table 21 shows the
plant-wise summary of lighting loads and the corresponding energy consumptions. It is obvious
that a majority of the lighting load (88% of total load) is generated at the GRTE plant. Area-wise
analysis gave insights into the distribution of lighting load at both the plants. At CRTE, the
following areas generated close to 51% of the total lighting load:
• Crate Storage Area
• Preparation Area
• Vegetables area (near main entrance)
At GRTE, around 50% of the lighting load was generated at the following areas:
• Storage Area (next to dispatch)
• JBT Crates and Pouch Storage Area
• Admin Office – Office Area
• Wrapping Section
Table 21 Plant-Wise Lighting Load and Energy Consumption Summary
Plant Name No. of fixtures
Load (kW)
Energy Consumption (kWh/yr.)
Energy Cost (INR/yr)
CRTE 80 2.3 8,000 74,034
GRTE/ RTC 670 17.2 60,079 5,55,985
Total 750 19.5 68,079 6,30,019
A vital parameter for assessing the effectiveness of Lighting Systems is the Installed Load
Efficacy Ratios (ILER); a ratio of the average maintained illuminance provided on a horizontal
working plane per circuit watt with general lighting of an interior to a recommended target
level. It is a dimensionless quantity comprised of a ratio of two quantities (lux per watt per
CFL12.65%
T5 mini-tube0.51%
T5 Tube82.11%
LED
4.72%
Fixture Type-wise Lighting Load distribution
CFL T5 mini-tube T5 Tube LED
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 38
square meter, lux/W/m²). It is defined by the following mathematical relationships which
necessitate the calculation of another dimensionless quantity, the Room Index which quantifies
the relative shape of a given room and incorporates the impact of the mounting height of
lighting fixtures.
𝐼𝐿𝐸𝑅 = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑢𝑥/𝑊/𝑚2
𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑙𝑢𝑥/𝑊/𝑚2
𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝑅𝐼) = 𝐿 ×𝑊
𝐻𝑚 ×(𝐿 + 𝑊)
Where, L = length of the room interior (m), W = width of the room interior (m), and Hm = mounting height of the fixture (m)
In the ILER calculation procedure presented above, the ‘Target’ lux/W/m2 is determined
according to the following table as a function of the Room Index.
Table 22 Target lux/W/m2 as a function of Room Index
Room Index
Commercial Lighting (Offices, Retail Stores etc.) Std. or good colour rending (Ra: 40-85)
Industrial Lighting (Manufacturing areas, workshops) Std. or good colour rending (Ra: 40-85)
Industrial Lighting where Std. or good colour rending is not essential (Ra: 20-40)
Avg. Target Lux/W/m²
0.25 22 22 40 31.0
0.50 27 27 44 35.5
0.75 30 30 48 39.3
1.00 33 33 52 42.5
1.25 36 36 55 45.5
1.50 39 39 58 48.5
2.00 42 42 61 51.5
2.50 44 44 64 54.0
3.00 46 46 65 55.5
4.00 48 48 66 57.0
5.00 49 49 67 58.0
Table 23 ILER Color Code
ILER Assessment Color Code
0.75 or over Satisfactory
0.51 - 0.74 Review Suggested
0.5 or less Urgent Action Required
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 39
ILER values were calculated for major indoor areas of the facility and have been presented in
Table 24 below along with recommended values for ILER9. The Table also indicates a priority
list of areas that need immediate attention to achieve immediate energy and cost reduction.
Table 24 ILER Assessment
Plant Name Area Name ILER Assessment
CRTE Pouching Section 0.43 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Cabin (Retort Control Room) 0.22 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Corridor Section 0.13 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Retort Room 0.40 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Maintenance 0.24 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Crate Storage 0.36 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Utensil washing area 1.18 Satisfactory
CRTE Cooking section 0.97 Satisfactory
CRTE Preparation Area 0.37 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Refrigeration Area 0.25 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Material Reception 0.23 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Dry Material Store 0.27 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Cabin 0.42 Urgent Action Required
CRTE Process Section 0.54 Review Suggested
CRTE Near main entrance - vegetable area 0.25 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Mini Storage Space behind stairs 0.43 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Storage of Spices and laminate rolls 0.33 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 0.38 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 0.76 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Urad Dal Storage 0.32 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Dispatch Section 1.30 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Lab (next to dispatch) 0.69 Review Suggested
GRTE/ RTC wrapping + storage 0.74 Review Suggested
GRTE/ RTC export finished goods store 1.01 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC FFS 0.38 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Dryer and Mixer 0.79 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Dairymate section 3.25 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Retort Section 1.42 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Pouching Section 0.47 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) 0.49 Urgent Action Required
9 Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy, Energy Performance Assessment for Equipment & Utility Systems, Chapter 4.14, Buildings and Commercial Establishments, Table 14.6
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 40
GRTE/ RTC Preparation Section 0.66 Review Suggested
GRTE/ RTC JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch) 0.23 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch) 0.74 Review Suggested
GRTE/ RTC Entrance Lobby 5.99 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Corridor/ Stairs 1.60 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Reception Area 0.33 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Office area 0.09 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Around laboratory 1.09 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Kitchen (QA lab) 1.04 Satisfactory
GRTE/ RTC Lab 2 0.34 Urgent Action Required
GRTE/ RTC Cabin 0.89 Satisfactory
4.2.2 Lighting Recommendations and Energy Conservation Opportunities
4.2.2.1 ILER Improvement
ILER Ratios of 0.75 an above are desired and considered satisfactory while values within the
range of 0.51 to 0.74 represent areas wherein improvement of lighting efficiency through the
following measures can be considered:
• higher lumens/watt fixtures through more efficient technology
• improved maintenance and cleaning of luminaries and room walls to reduce impact of
dust and dirt accumulation leading to illumination loss including wall repainting
• reducing lux levels (by eliminating a fraction of the installed fixtures) if higher than
required or recommended illuminance levels are prevalent
ILER values lower than 0.5 should serve as an alarm for immediate action to improve lighting
efficiency per the measures above. As presented in the tables above, the ILER values are
generally much lower than 0.5 in most areas and require immediate attention. The ILER can be
improved by reducing the mounting height of the fixtures and cleaning the fixtures periodically.
The potential energy and associated cost savings from improving ILER values can be estimated
by comparing the energy requirement in the current situation relative to the energy
requirement for a perfect scenario with ILER equal to 1.0. The savings estimate for the Plant is
presented in Table 25 below and indicates a total energy savings potential of approximately INR
3 Lakhs through improvement in ILER values across both the plants.
Table 25 Energy and Cost Savings from ILER Improvement
Plant Area Energy Saving (kWh/yr)
Cost Saving (INR/yr)
GHG Savings (MTCO₂e/year)
CRTE Pouching Section 388 3,591 0.46
CRTE Cabin (Retort Control Room) 77 711 0.09
CRTE Corridor 170 1,575 0.20
CRTE Retort Room 469 4,343 0.56
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 41
CRTE Maintenance 444 4,110 0.53
CRTE Crate Storage 999 9,245 1.19
CRTE Cooking section 19 172 0.02
CRTE Preparation Area 982 9,092 1.17
CRTE Refrigeration Area 74 684 0.09
CRTE Material Reception 75 697 0.09
CRTE Dry Material Store 71 660 0.09
CRTE Cabin 57 523 0.07
CRTE Process Section 90 833 0.11
CRTE Vegetable area (Near main entrance)
662 6,126 0.79
GRTE/ RTC Mini Storage Space behind stairs 111 1,028 0.13
GRTE/ RTC Storage of Spices and laminate rolls
2,107 19,496 2.51
GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 2,979 27,572 3.55
GRTE/ RTC Main storage space 83 765 0.10
GRTE/ RTC Urad Dal Storage 795 7,360 0.95
GRTE/ RTC Lab (next to dispatch) 61 561 0.07
GRTE/ RTC wrapping + storage 1,543 14,280 1.84
GRTE/ RTC FFS 488 4,515 0.58
GRTE/ RTC Dryer and Mixer 798 7,389 0.95
GRTE/ RTC Pouching Section 733 6,786 0.87
GRTE/ RTC Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) 403 3,728 0.48
GRTE/ RTC Preparation Section 465 4,304 0.55
GRTE/ RTC JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch)
6,756 62,519 8.06
GRTE/ RTC Storage Room (next to Dispatch) 2,376 21,990 2.83
GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Reception Area 672 6,220 0.80
GRTE/ RTC Admin Office - Office area 6,774 62,691 8.08
GRTE/ RTC Lab 2 846 7,831 1.01
GRTE/ RTC Cabin 22 200 0.03
Total 32,590 3,01,596 38.9
4.2.2.2 Reduce Excess Illuminance
As indicated in the illuminance assessment earlier, a few indoor areas of the plants are provided with lighting that supersedes standard lux requirements. The areas with higher luminance than necessary in the GRTE plant are Dispatch Section, Dairymate Section, Entrance Lobby and Corridor/Stairs. All areas in the CRTE plant are adequately illuminated. The analysis conducted to ascertain potential energy conservation benefits of eliminating excess lighting fixtures led to the conclusion that aligning lux levels across the plant with standard lux levels could yield energy savings of477 kWh/year and an annual cost saving of approximately INR 4,412 per year without any capital investment.
Table 26 Energy and Cost Saving by Reducing the Lighting Fixtures
Area Power Reduction (kW)
Energy Savings by Reducing Fixtures (kWh/yr)
Demand Reduction (kVA)
Cost Savings (INR/yr)
GHG Savings (MT CO₂e/yr)
Dispatch Section 0.04 153 0.04 1,418 0.18
Dairymate Section 0.01 22 0.01 201 0.03
Entrance Lobby 0.04 148 0.04 1,370 0.18
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 42
Corridor/ Stairs 0.04 154 0.04 1,424 0.18
Total 0.13 477 0.14 4,412 0.57
4.2.2.3 Replacement with LED Lights
LED lighting technology affords numerous benefits over conventional lighting systems such as CFL, TFL, HPMV, Metal Halide etc. The primary advantages have been listed below-
• Reliability (no spontaneous failure)
• Emit less heat
• Use less power relative to most conventional lighting systems
• Are more energy efficient relative to conventional lighting systems and consume 50% to 60% lower power than most lighting systems to achieve the same light output
• Quick ON / OFF response
• Free of hazardous materials
• Long lifetimes in the range 40,000 hours to 50,000 (approximately 40 times longer than that of an Incandescent Bulb) which translates to longer service intervals between light replacement
• Flexibility in colors
Table 27 below provides a summary of annual energy cost saving possibilities by usage of
high efficacy LED Lamps to replace the extensively used (around 10 hours per day) T5 tube
lights and CFL Lamps. The model developed for the project accounted for the nuance that
indoor lights can be replaced by widely available LED Bulbs. The analysis indicates that a total
of approximately INR 0.90 Lakhs could be saved through switching from existing lighting
systems to high performance LEDs in indoor lighting scenarios as shown below. It is
understood from conversations with the facility manager that measures are already in place
for replacing the old and existing T5 tubes with LED tubes. The estimated capital cost for the
project would be INR 3.11 Lakhs, yielding a payback period of 3.5 years and an annual energy
conservation and GHG Mitigation potential of 9,722 kWh/year and 11.6 MT CO2e/year,
respectively.
Table 27 Lighting Environmental and Cost Savings Estimate from Equipment Replacement
Details Energy Savings (kWh/yr)
Cost Savings (INR/yr)
Capital Cost (INR) GHG Mitig. (MT CO2e/yr)
Payback Period (yrs)
T5 to LED 7,188 66,522 3,00,385 8.57 4.52
CFL to LED 2,534 23,447 10,740 3.02 0.46
Total 9,722 89,969 3,11,125 11.6 3.46
4.2.2.4 Other options for Lighting Energy Conservation
Use of Motion / PIR Sensors
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 43
Energy consumption from building interiors and exteriors that do not require continual
lighting and cooling due to infrequent occupancy (e.g. stairwell/ corridor and compound
lighting in buildings and fan/light operation in toilets, etc.) can be significantly diminished by
use of Passive Infrared Sensors - PIR Sensors to controls HVAC and lighting fixtures.
Incorporating PIR Sensor-control in tube lights, used 10-12 hours per day (approximate usage
in stairwell lighting applications), can mitigate energy consumption by approximately 160
kWh per fixture. This alternative is even more viable when multiple fittings can be sensed
and controlled by a single PIR sensor.
Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Lighting System
• Luminance Assessment: Reducing the number of fixtures can result in savings of INR 4,412
annually.
• ILER Improvement: Improving ILER to 1.0 can result in savingsupto INR 3,01,596 yearly.
• Replace T5 tubes to LED Light (Indoor): Replacement of all indoor HPMV lights with LED
lights would result in an energy saving of 7,188 kWh/year and an associated cost saving of
approximately INR 66,522 annually. Capital cost of equipment would be around INR 3.0 lakhs
with a payback period of 4.5 years.
• Replace CFL to LED Light (Indoor): Replacement of all CFL bulbs with LED lights would result
in an energy saving of 2,534 kWh/year and an associated cost reduction of approximately INR
23,447 annually. Capital cost of equipment would be around INR 10,740 and payback period
0.5 years.
4.3 HVAC System The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System at both GRTE and CRTE consists of the
following sub-systems which have been employed to achieve the end-uses for various
process cooling, space cooling and comfort cooling needs.
1) Fresh Air Handling Units (AHUs to satisfy fresh air ventilation needs for occupant comfort,
health and safety needs)
2) Cooling Towers (heat rejection from processes using steam and hot water)
Neither AHUs nor Cooling Towers are among the most energy intensive HVAC systems and
this is justified by the findings that AHUs account for just 2.4% and Cooling Towers account
for 2.1% of the total annual energy consumption at both the plants combined. Together,
HVAC systems at Gits are responsible for 4.5% of the annual energy consumption.
Each of the above systems was independently studied to determine performance levels
achieved by them and to estimate overall system efficiencies. The goal was to ascertain the
operational performance as measured relative to the rated capacities to identify scope for
improving the energy efficiency of the equipment.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 44
4.3.1 AHU Performance Assessment
Air Handling Units at the GRTE and CRTE plants fulfil the requirement of fresh air in the
working areas while providing comfort to the occupants. In the context of comfort cooling,
technical literature related to HVAC system design indicates that a temperature band of 22⁰C
– 26⁰C with a relative humidity of 55% is the most appropriate combination for human
comfort. Furthermore, research by the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) specifies that an
indoor temperature of 240C is ideal for thermal comfort for Indians. The goal of Energy Audit-
connected AHUs was to identify potential for optimization of the Air Conditioning system to
deliver comfort in the most economical manner by examining and enhancing technical
performance parameters of the existing equipment, recommending economically feasible
overhauls and any necessary modifications to operation and maintenance protocols being
currently followed.
Fresh-Air Ventilation AHUs
The table below provides an estimate of the operational performance of the Fresh-Air
Ventilation AHUs audited at the plants. The rated power consumption for the installed
systems is 11.8 kW. The measurements indicated that the system consumes an estimated
power of 11.4 kW and leads to an annual energy consumption of approximately 33,179 kWh
to deliver a flow rate of 6,263 m³/hr. The key efficiency parameters for Fresh-Air AHUs are
Static Fan Efficiency and percentage (%) loading.
• Static Fan Efficiency could not be measured at the Plant in almost all instances due to
the absence of pre-existent ports in the ducting to measure suction and discharge
pressure in conjunction with the fact that drilling apertures into the ducting sheets was
highly unfeasible.
• The % loading of the system was determined from a comparison of the measured
power consumption relative to rated power consumption at a system level. AHUs at
both the plants have a high percentage of loading, about 96% loading on average.
Table 28 HVAC System – Fresh-Air Ventilation AHUs Performance Assessment
Sr. No
Location AHU ID Motor Rated (kW)
Meas. Power Cons. (kW)
Meas. Air Flow (m³/hr)
Energy Cons. (kWh/yr)
1 CRTE (Pouching)
AHU1 2.2 2.1 1756 5,998
2
CRTE (Preparation Area + Kitchen)
AHU2 2.2 2.1 1564 6,214
3 GRTE AHU3 3.7 3.6 1373 10,504
4 GRTE AHU4 3.7 3.6 1569 10,462
Total 11.8 11.4 6,263 33,179
The high loading of AHUs and their relatively small-scale application (fresh air ventilation for
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 45
Pouching and Preparation Areas) led to the conclusion that there isn’t any considerable energy
conservation opportunity at this stage.
4.3.2 Cooling Towers
4.3.2.1 Cooling Tower Performance Assessment
The table below provides an estimate of the operational performance of the Cooling Towers
audited at the Plant. The GRTE plant has a cooling tower with a rated water flow rate 35
(m3/hr) and a corresponding rated power consumption of pump of 3.73 kW. The total rated
power consumption also includes the power consumption for Cooling Tower Fan which is
7.46 kW. The total rated power of the cooling tower amounts to 11.2 kW. The rated capacity
(TR) detail of the Cooling Tower was unavailable and hence couldn’t be referred to for
comparison. The measurements indicated that the system consumes an estimated total
power (Pumps and Fans) of 8.1 kW and 29,510 kWh/year electrical energy while delivering a
cooling of magnitude 6.7 TR.
The key efficiency parameter for Cooling Towers is the ‘Effectiveness’ defined by the
following mathematical relationships:
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 (ᵒ𝐶) =𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑘𝐶𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑟)
𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝐿𝑃𝐻)
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒(ᵒ𝐶) = 𝐼𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐻𝑜𝑡 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶 − 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ = 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶 − 𝐴𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑏 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝 0𝐶
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (%) = 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 + 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ
𝐸𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 (𝑚3
ℎ𝑟) = 0.00085 ∗ 1.8 ∗ 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∗ (𝑇1 − 𝑇2)
Where, Circulation rate = Water flow rate in m3/hr
T1-T2 = Temperature difference between inlet and outlet in ᵒC
𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐷𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 =𝐸𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠
(𝐶. 𝑂. 𝐶 − 1)
Where,
C.O.C = Cycle of concentration, which is the ratio of dissolved solids in circulating water to
the dissolved solid water in makeup water
The assessment presented below indicates Cooling Tower effectiveness measured at the plant is
72.7% compared to the rated effectiveness of 95.5%. Cooling Tower Effectiveness is a key
performance indicator and therefore an indicator of energy efficiency as well. While this
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 46
effectiveness seems to be on the lower side, it must be noted that the before entering the
cooling tower, the water passes through a cold well where it gives up some of its heat. The hot
well-cold well concept in play here reduces the amount of work (heat rejection) to be done by
the cooling tower. In cases where the heat rejection is achieved satisfactorily by the cold well
itself, the cooling tower need not be operational. Table 29 shows operational details of the
cooling tower at the plant, and Table 30 shows details of the measured heat load and losses.
The measured heat load for the cooling tower was 22,400 kCal/hr compared to rated heat load
for the cooling tower is 22,40,000 kCal/hr, which indicates that there is hardly any load on the
cooling tower. Just 0.12% of the water inlet is lost to evaporation, which is in line with ASHRAE’s
rule of 1% loss to evaporation for every 7ᵒC drop in water temperature. Based on the
evaporation losses and the cycles of concentration, the blow down loss was estimated to be
0.02 m³/hr. To compensate for these losses, 54 liters of make-up water requirement per hour
has been estimated.
Table 29 Cooling Tower Rated and Measured Performance Overview
Cooling Tower ID
Rated Power (kW)
Measured Power (kW)
Measured Range (ᵒC)
Measured Approach (ᵒC)
Rated Effectiveness (%)
Measured Effectiveness (%)
Annual Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)
GRTE CT-01 11.2 8.1 0.8 0.3 95.52% 72.73% 29,510
Table 30 Cooling tower heat load and losses details
Rated Heat Load (kCal/hr)
Measured Heat Load (kCal/hr)
Evaporation Loss (m³/hr)
COC (Cycles of Concentration)
Blow Down Loss (m³/hr)
Make Up Water Requirement (m³/hr)
22,40,000 22,400 0.034 2.7 0.02 0.054
4.3.2.2 Cooling Tower Energy Conservation Opportunities
Shutting down the Cooling Tower
The range for the cooling tower is less than 1 deg Celsius and the cooling tower seems to
be heavily overdesigned considering the fact that a hot-well cold-well mechanism is in
place. It is recommended to shut down operations of the cooling tower. Table 31 below
presents the projected energy and cost savings estimates if the Cooling Tower is shut
down. This intervention could yield annual energy and cost savings of approximately
29,150 kWh/year and INR 2.73 Lakhs/year, respectively.
Table 31 Shutting Down the cooling Tower – Energy and Cost Saving Estimates
Project Description Energy Savings (kWh/yr)
Annual Savings (INR)
GHG Savings (MT CO2e/yr)
Shutting down the Cooling Tower 29,510 2,73,096 39.9
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 47
Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – HVAC System
• Shutting down the cooling tower – could lead to energy savings of 29,510 kWh/yr
annually and cost savings of INR 2.73 lakhs per year.
4.4 Boilers
4.4.1 Boiler Performance Assessment
The main application of boilers in both GRTE and CRTE plants is the sterilization of
pouches post packaging in JBT Retort. Steam is generated using a boiler fired with high
speed diesel (HSD).
4.4.1.1 Thermal Efficiency and Loading Assessment
A boundary condition was set to assess the thermal performance of the boiler. A set of experimental trials were conducted, described as under, to assess efficiency under controlled conditions using the ‘Direct Method’ and ‘Indirect Method’ of efficiency assessment as outlined by the BEE Energy Audit Manual.
The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) India specifies two methods for calculating boiler
efficiencies - the Direct Method and the Indirect Method. In Direct Method, the basic
formula for efficiency (output/input) is used where useful output (steam) is divided by
heat input to calculate the efficiency. In some cases, direct efficiency values are closer to
reality as compared to indirect efficiency on account of uncovered losses such as ON-OFF
losses. However, direct efficiency can only tell us about the magnitude of the overall loss,
i.e. no information about individual losses (and their magnitudes) is conveyed from direct
efficiency calculation. The Indirect Method on the other hand involves summing up all the
loss fractions in the steam generating process and subtracting them from 100(%). This
method accounts for losses due to dry flue gas, due to moisture, due to hydrogen in fuel,
etc. The tracing of losses is the key advantage of Indirect Method as it gives us more
clarity to figure out measures for improving boiler efficiencies. Also, Indirect efficiency is
measured at a particular time whereas Direct efficiency is measured over a period of time
(or using data collected over a period of time). There always exists some difference in the
values of direct and indirect efficiencies.
✓ Batches of fuel were prepared for firing the boiler over a fixed period of time ✓ Feed Water supply to the Feed Water Tank was stopped ✓ Feed Water tank dimensions was noted ✓ Feed Water temperature was recorded ✓ Outer dimensions were measured ✓ Drop in the level of diesel in the fuel tank was measured to get the total fuel consumed
during the trial ✓ Water level drop, after consumption of fuel stock, was measured ✓ % of CO2 in the exhaust gas after economizer was measured
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 48
The performance parameters measured during the trials have been presented below. The relevant equations used to determine Boiler efficiency were:
For direct efficiency method:
Heat Input (kCal) = GCV of Fuel (kCal/kg) × Fuel Mass (kg)
Heat Output (kCal) = Mass of Steam (kg) × (𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚− 𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)
Efficiency (%) = Steam Flow Rate (kg/hr) × (𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 − 𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)
𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 (𝑘𝑔ℎ𝑟
)× GCV of Fuel (kCal/kg)
For indirect efficiency method:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑(𝑘𝑔
𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙) =
[(11.6 ∗ 𝐶) + {34.8 ∗ (𝐻2 −𝑂28 )} + (4.35 ∗ 𝑆)]
100
Where, C= Carbon percentage in the fuel (%)
H2= Hydrogen percentage in the fuel (%)
O2= Oxygen percentage in the fuel (%)
S= Sulphur percentage in the fuel (%)
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑂2(%) =𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛
𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑒𝑛 + 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 + 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑢𝑙𝑝ℎ𝑢𝑟
% 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = 7900 ∗[(𝐶𝑂2%)𝑡 − (𝐶𝑂2%)𝑎]
(𝐶𝑂2%)𝑎 ∗ [100 − (𝐶𝑂2)𝑡]
Where, (CO2%)t= Theoretical CO2%
(CO2%)a= Measured CO2% by flue gas analyzer
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 (𝑘𝑔
𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙)
= [1 + (% 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑)] ∗ 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 (𝑘𝑔
𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙)
= 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 (𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑆𝑂2 + 𝑁2 + 𝑂2) + 𝑁2 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝑚 ∗ 𝐶𝑃 ∗𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎
𝐺𝐶𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100
Where,
m= Mass of dry flue gas (kg/kg of fuel)
Cp= Specific heat of the flue gas in kCal/kg
Tf= Flue gas temperature in ᵒC
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 49
Ta= Ambient air temperature in ᵒC
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐻2 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (%)
= 9 ∗ 𝐻2 ∗{584 + 𝐶𝑝 ∗ (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎)}
𝐺𝐶𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100
Where,
H2 = kg of hydrogen present in the fuel on 1 kg basis
Cp= Specific heat of superheated steam in kCal/kg ᵒC
Tf= Flue gas temperature in ᵒC
Ta= Ambient air temperature in ᵒC
584 = Latent heat of corresponding to partial pressure of water vapour in kCal/kg
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (%) = 𝑀 ∗{584 + 𝐶𝑝 ∗ (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎)}
𝐺𝐶𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100
Where,
M = kg of moisture in fuel on 1 kg basis
Cp= Specific heat of superheated steam in kCal/kg ᵒC
Tf= Flue gas temperature in ᵒC
Ta= Ambient air temperature in ᵒC
584 = Latent heat of corresponding to partial pressure of water vapour in kCal/kg
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝐴𝐴𝑆 ∗ ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑎
𝐺𝐶𝑉𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙∗ 100
Where,
M= Actual mass of air supplied per kg of fuel
Humidity factor = kg of water per kg of dry air
Cp= Specific heat of superheated steam in kCal/kg ᵒC
Tf= Flue gas temperature in ᵒC
Ta= Ambient air temperature in ᵒC
Table 32 Boiler Efficiency Trials - Performance Parameters
Plant GRTE CRTE
Make Elite Engineers Elite Engineers
Type Non-IBR Non-IBR
Capacity (TPH) 1.5 1.0
Fuel Used High Speed Diesel High Speed Diesel
Avg. Fuel Consumption (kg/hr) 47.9 24.6
Quantity of Steam Generated (TPH) 0.819 0.403
Steam Pressure (kg/cm²) 8.5 11.0
Steam Temperature (°C) 173.0 184.0
Enthalpy of Generated Steam (kCal/kg) 662 664
Feed Water Temperature (°C) 30.0 30.0
Enthalpy of Feed Water (kCal/kg) 30.0 30.0
Total Heat Input (kCal/hr) 5,67,028 2,90,818
Total Heat Output (kCal/hr) 5,17,204 2,55,262
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 50
Evaporation Ratio 17.1 16.4
Loading 59.1% 43.3%
System Efficiency by Direct Method (%) 91.2% 87.8%
System Efficiency by Indirect Method (%) 85.7% 85.3%
It has to be noted that while the rated capacities of the GRTE Boiler and the CRTE Boiler are 1.5 TPH and 1 TPH respectively (at 1000C Feed Water Temperature), the effective rated capacities (for purposes of determining the operational loading rate in terms of %) were expected to be lower since the Return Feed Water temperatures were measured to be approximately 540C & 580C. These ‘de-rated’ capacities were calculated to be approximately 1.39 TPH and 0.93 TPH respectively. The % loading for each boiler was calculated based on these values.
The results of the test yield an efficiency of 85.7%10 at 59.1% loading for GRTE and 85.3% efficiency at 43.3% loading for CRTE. A difference between the efficiencies calculated by the two methods discussed earlier was observed, this could be due to human errors in physical measurement of the volume of the tank for calculating fuel consumption.
The most vital outcome of the Boiler Efficiency trials was that the measured efficiency was not much lower than anticipated relative to the average industry benchmarks. Figure 20 below indicates the expected Boiler Efficiency as a function of Heat Load %11. As expected, the plot indicates an increasing Dynamic Efficiency of the Boiler for higher Heat Load conditions. For the Heat Load conditions simulated during the trials (~43% and ~60% for CRTE and GRTE respectively), the benchmark efficiency curve below indicates a minimum expected Dynamic Efficiency of approximately 80% for the boiler at CRTE and 82% for the boiler at GRTE. This is approximately 5% and 4% lower than the measured efficiencies of 85% and 86% for the boilers at CRTE and GRTE respectively. The economizer is a heat recovery device which heats the feed water using heat available from waste gases, this lowers the fuel requirement in combustion. Economizer also helps in removal of dissolved gases by preheating of water and thus minimizes tendency of corrosion and pitting. These factors improve the efficiencies of a boiler system with an economizer. The Boiler Curve shown in Figure 20 does not account for the economizer. This explains the calculated efficiencies being higher as assessment was carried out with the economizer.
Figure 20 Benchmark Boiler Dynamic Efficiency % vs. Heat Load % Curve
10 Efficiency with indirect method is more accurate than the direct method. 11 Source: http://www.raypak.com/support/tech_corner/modulation
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 51
4.4.1.2 Energy and Efficiency Loss Assessment
The ‘Indirect method’ of assessment was used to ascertain relative contributions of various
sources of efficiency losses to the overall efficiency loss witnessed during the trials described
earlier. The ‘Indirect Method’ requires laboratory analysis of fuel to determine chemical
composition of the fuel and analysis of flue gas using a Flue Gas Analyzer. The lack of laboratory
reports of fuel analysis required that the standard composition of High Speed Diesel was
assumed12 for calculation purposes. The results of the analysis have been shared below.
Table 33 High Speed Diesel - Fuel Analysis Results
Sr. No Characteristics Values
1 Carbon 83.8%
2 Hydrogen 12.1%
3 Oxygen 0.60%
4 Sulphur 3.50%
5 Density in kg/ltr 0.83
6 GCV in kCal/kg 11,840
Field measurements of operational parameters relevant to the ‘Indirect Method’ have been
presented in the table below.
Table 34 Boiler Operation Parameters for ‘Indirect Method’
Parameter GRTE CRTE
% of Excess Air 21.4% 30.6%
Ambient DBT (K) 301 301
Actual CO2 in flue gas 11.9% 10.9%
Average Flue Gas Temp. (°C) 228 225
Specific Heat of Flue Gas (kCal/kg °C) 0.24 0.24
Specific Heat of Super Sat. Steam (kCal/kg °C) 0.43 0.43
12 Reference: Applied industrial Energy and Environment. Management by Z.K. Morvay, D.D. Gvozdenace
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 52
The loss due to moisture in air is minimal and the heat losses due to radiation and convection have been assumed to be 1%. These loss assessments were compared to the expected range of losses calculated from rated CO2% (range 13.5% -14%) and Flue gas temperature range (225ᵒC-250ᵒC)13.
Theoretical losses estimated from rated flue gas temperature and CO2% are presented below.
Table 35 Scenarios for boiler performance estimation
Sr. No. Scenarios14 Details
1 Scenario -I Flue Gas Temp. 225ᵒC and CO2 13.5%
2 Scenario - II Flue Gas Temp. 250ᵒC and CO2 13.5%
3 Scenario - III Flue Gas Temp. 225ᵒC and CO2 14%
4 Scenario - IV Flue Gas Temp. 250ᵒC and CO2 14%
5 Measured Flue Gas Temp. 228ᵒC and CO2 11.9% (On-site measured - GRTE)
6 Measured Flue Gas Temp. 225ᵒC and CO2 10.95% (On-site measured - CRTE)
Table 36 Boiler Losses for different scenarios - GRTE GRTE -01 Boiler Unit I
Details Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV Measured
Avg. Flue Gas Temp. (Deg. C) 225 250 225 250 228
Co2 (%) in Flue Gas 13.5% 13.5% 14.0% 14.0% 11.9%
% of Excess Air Supplied 9.5% 9.5% 6.3% 6.3% 21.4%
Actual Mass of Excess Air (kg of Air/ kg of Fuel)
15.39 15.39 14.95 14.95 17.07
Mass of Dry Flue Gas (kg / kg of Fuel)
15.30 15.30 14.86 14.86 16.98
Heat loss in Dry Flue Gas (%) 6.1% 6.9% 5.9% 6.7% 6.9%
Heat loss Due to Evaporation of Water due to Hydrogen in Fuel (%)
6.1% 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2%
Heat loss due to Moisture in Fuel (%)
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Heat loss due to Moisture in Air (%)
0.22% 0.25% 0.21% 0.24% 0.25%
Radiation loss & Convection loss
1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
Table 37 Boiler losses for different scenarios - CRTE CRTE -01 Boiler Unit II
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV Measured
Avg. Flue Gas Temp. (Deg. C) 225 250 225 250 225
13 CO2% and flue gas temperature ranges were received from Elite Engineers (Boiler Manufacturer) (http://www.elitethermal.net/) 14 Scenarios 1-4 were assumed same for the both the boiler GRTE and CRTE based on the details received from the boiler manufacturer.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 53
Co2 (%) in Flue Gas 13.50% 13.50% 14.00% 14.00% 10.9%
% of Excess Air Supplied 9.5% 9.5% 6.3% 6.3% 30.6%
Actual Mass of Excess Air (kg of Air/ kg of Fuel)
15.39 15.39 14.95 14.95 18.36
Mass of Dry Flue Gas (kg / kg of Fuel)
15.30 15.30 14.86 14.86 18.27
Heat loss in Dry Flue Gas (%) 6.1% 6.9% 5.9% 6.7% 7.3%
Heat loss Due to Evaporation of Water due to Hydrogen in Fuel (%)
6.1% 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 6.1%
Heat loss due to Moisture in Fuel (%)
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Heat loss due to Moisture in Air (%)
0.22% 0.25% 0.21% 0.24% 0.26%
Radiation loss & Convection loss
1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
The resultant losses calculated for each type of energy loss from the above operational data is presented below. It has to be noted that in the absence of an uncertainty analysis, a 10% disparity has been allowed for between measured and average acceptable losses.
Table 38 Examination of losses in GRTE Boiler
Sr. No.
Details of Losses Average acceptable loss
Measured loss Remark
1 Heat loss in dry flue gas (%) 6.39% 6.90% Acceptable
2 Heat loss due to evaporation of water due to H2 in fuel (%) 6.20% 6.20% Acceptable
3 Heat loss due to moisture in fuel (%) 0.00% 0.00% Acceptable
4 Heat loss due to moisture in Air (%) 0.23% 0.25% Acceptable
Table 39 Examination of losses in CRTE Boiler
Sr. No.
Details of Losses Average acceptable loss
Measured loss
Status
1 Heat loss in dry flue gas (%) 6.39% 6.10% Acceptable
2 Heat loss due to evaporation of water due to H2 in fuel (%) 6.20% 7.30% Not Acceptable
3 Heat loss due to moisture in fuel (%) 0.00% 0.00% Acceptable
4 Heat loss due to moisture in Air (%) 0.23% 0.26% Not Acceptable
It is evident from the above energy loss assessment that the heat losses due to dry flue gases
contribute around 6.90% and 6.10% to the total losses in the GRTE and CRTE boilers
respectively. Evaporation of H2 (Hydrogen) in the fuel causes around 6.20% and 7.30% heat loss
from the boilers at GRTE and CRTE respectively.
4.4.2 Boiler & Steam System Recommendation and Energy Conservation
Opportunities
4.4.2.1 Thermal Efficiency Enhancement
The implications of thermal efficiency of boilers on energy and cost were computed and have been presented in
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 54
Table 40 below. There is scope for energy savings from boiler energy efficiency up-gradation through equipment refurbishment, maintenance or overhaul. Maintenance measures specified by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) can be found in the Appendix. As per details received from the manufacturer15, the rated thermal efficiency of the boiler is 93% (with Heat Recovery Unit). The potential for cost savings by enhancing boiler efficiency from approximately 85.5 % to 93 % have been estimated to be INR 1.98 Lakhs/year and INR 1.83 Lakhs/year for GRTE and CRTE Boiler respectively, along with an energy intensity reduction of 149.7 GJ/year and 138.8 GJ/year respectively.
Table 40 Boiler Efficiency Enhancement Savings Estimate
Parameter GRTE CRTE
Boiler Efficiency (%) 85.7% 85.3%
Revised Boiler Efficiency 93.0% 93.0%
Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1
Avg. Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.83 3.99
Revised Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.53 3.66
Annual Fuel Energy Savings (%) 7.8% 8.3%
Total Heat Input - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (kCal/year) 45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431
Revised Heat Input (kCal/year) - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation
42,22,05,615 36,73,99,253
Total Fuel Cost - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (INR/year) 25,31,612 22,14,256
Revised Total Fuel Cost for Steam Generation - (INR/year) 23,33,944 20,30,975
Annual Fuel Savings (Ltrs/year) 3,655 3,389
Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 1,97,688 1,83,281
Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 149.7 138.8
4.4.2.2 Fuel Saving Device - FLUX Maxiox
The FLUX Maxiox is a magnetic device which generates a magnetic field that is rendered exactly perpendicular to the fuel flowing through the fuel line on which it is installed. This magnetic field is scientifically designed to impart certain physical changes in the fuel thereby causing the fuel to burn more efficiently.
In simplistic terms, the FLUX Maxiox functions in two distinct ways:
1) The magnetic field of the device interacts with the hydrocarbon fuel to make oxygen react better with the fuel and thus renders the burning of the fuel more efficient.
2) The magnetic field physically changes the hydrogen part of the fuel into a higher energized isomer which gives more energy output for the same amount of fuel burnt, thereby giving considerable savings in the fuel consumed.
By installing the FLUX Maxiox in existing boiler systems (GRTE and CRTE), approximately 4,388 liters/year of high speed diesel can be saved which leads to annual savings of 2,37,294 INR. The savings are based on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for GRTE and CRTE Boiler system. The annual savings analysis by installing the FLUX Maxiox in existing boiler system has been presented in the table below.
15 Elite Thermal Engineers Pvt. Ltd., http://www.elitethermal.net/steam-boilers.html#ibr-steam-boiler
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 55
Table 41 Saving estimates through fuel saving device- FLUX Maxiox
Parameter GRTE CRTE
Fuel Saving Device FLUX Maxiox FLUX Maxiox
Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1
Avg. Fuel Consumption (ltrs/year) 46,810 40,942
Revised Diesel Consumption (ltrs/year) 44,470 38,895
Avg. Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.83 3.99
Revised Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.64 3.79
Fuel Savings 5% 5%
Total Heat Input - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (kCal/year) 45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431
Revised Heat Input (kCal/year) - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation
43,50,65,206 38,05,26,709
Total Fuel Cost - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (INR/year) 25,31,612 22,14,256
Revised Total Fuel Cost for Steam Generation - (INR/year) 24,05,031 21,02,543
Annual Fuel Savings (Ltrs/year) 2,341 2,047
Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 1,26,581 1,10,713
Capital Cost of Flux Maxiox 1,20,000 1,20,000
Payback Period (years) 1.0 1.1
Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 95.9 83.9
4.4.2.3 Alternate Fuel (Bio-diesel)
Alternate fuel Bio-diesel can be used instead of high speed diesel. Using bio-diesel (GRTE and CRTE) instead of high speed diesel can lead to annual savings of INR 15,94,114. The savings are based on the difference in fuel cost. The annual savings analysis by using bio-diesel in the existing boiler systems has been given in the table below.
Table 42 Savings from use of bio-diesel
Parameter GRTE CRTE
GCV of HSD (kCal/kg) 11,840 11,840
GCV of Bio-diesel (kCal/kg) 10,100 10,100
Avg. Fuel Consumption (Ltrs/yr) 46,810 40,942
Revised Bio-diesel Consumption (ltr/yr) 50,947 44,561
HSD Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1
Bio-Diesel Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 33 33
Avg. Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.83 3.99
Revised Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 2.54 2.65
Fuel Savings -8.9% -8.8%
Total Heat Input - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (kCal/year) 45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431
Revised Heat Input (kCal/year) - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation
45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431
Total Fuel Cost - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (INR/year) 25,31,612 22,14,256
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 56
Revised Total Fuel Cost for Steam Generation - (INR/year) 16,81,254 14,70,497
Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 8,50,358 7,43,756
It has to be noted that negative fuel savings in the above table indicate that the physical
quantity of bio-diesel required for an equivalent average daily steam generation is that much
higher compared to HSD. This is because the Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of HSD is 11,840
kCal/kg while the GCV of Bio-diesel is 10,100 kCal/kg. The amount of bio-diesel required for
producing the same amount of heat energy is higher than HSD due to the inherent properties of
the respective fuels.
Some of the interventions proposed (including switching to bio-diesel or power-factor/ load-
management) have significant advantage of direct operational cost savings for the plant without
necessarily directly reducing energy consumption. These interventions can be seen as projects
that can be implemented immediately to establish a ‘green-fund’ from the costs savings that
result. This fund can subsequently spur internal investment in a capital improvement programs
for less financially rewarding (i.e. longer payback period etc.) but imperative environmental
technologies that warrant attention due to their immense sustainability benefits.
4.4.2.4 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD
KM+ instantly improves the quality of liquid fuel the moment it is mixed. It is non-toxic,
environmentally friendly and biodegradable. KM+ enables fuel to be dispersed to smaller fuel
droplets and speeds up the fuel burning process to completion before piston is in its upward
stroke. The key benefits of fast burning fuel are reduction in black smoke, toxic gases, wastage
of unburned fuel and reduction in greenhouse gas.
By adding fuel additives in the existing boiler combustion systems (GRTE and CRTE boiler systems), approximately 8,775 ltrs/year of high speed diesel can be saved which would lead to annual savings of 3,16,633 INR. The savings depend on the yearly high speed diesel consumption for GRTE and CRTE Boiler systems. The annual savings analysis by using fuel additives in existing boiler system has been done using the existing consumption pattern as a reference, details of the analysis have been shown in the table below.
Table 43 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with HSD
Parameter GRTE CRTE
Fuel Saving Additives KM+ KM+
HSD Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1
KM+ Cost (INR/ltr) 3,000 3,000
Avg. Fuel Consumption (ltrs/year) 46,810 40,942
Revised Diesel Consumption (ltrs/year) 42,129 36,848
Fuel Additive Quantity (ltrs/year) 28.1 24.6
Cost of Fuel Additives (INR/year) 84,259 73,696
Avg. Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.83 3.99
Revised Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.57 3.73
Fuel Savings 10.0% 10.0%
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 57
Total Heat Input - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (kCal/year) 45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431
Revised Heat Input (kCal/year) - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation
41,21,67,038 36,04,98,988
Total Fuel Cost - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (INR/year) 25,31,612 22,14,256
Revised Total Fuel Cost for Steam Generation - (INR/year) 23,62,709 20,66,527
Annual Fuel Savings (ltrs/year) 4,681 4,094
Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 1,68,903 1,47,730
Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 192 168
4.4.2.5 Use of KM+ Fuel Additives with Bio-diesel
The fuel additive KM+ is also compatible with bio-diesel. Use of bio-diesel with the fuel additive (in both GRTE and CRTE boilers) instead of high speed diesel would lead to an estimated annual savings of 16,58,585 INR. The savings are based on the differences in fuel cost. The annual savings analysis by using bio-diesel in existing boiler system along with the recommended fuel additive has been presented in the table below.
Table 44 Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with Bio-diesel
Parameter GRTE CRTE
HSD Fuel GCV (kCal/kg) 11,840 11,840
Bio-diesel GCV (kCal/kg) 10,100 10,100
Fuel Saving Additives KM+ KM+
HSD Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 54.1 54.1
Bio-Diesel Fuel Cost (INR/ltr) 33 33
KM+ Cost (INR/ltr) 3,000 3,000
Fuel Additive Quantity (ltrs/year) 30.6 26.7
Cost of Fuel Additives (INR/year) 91,907 80,209
Avg. HSD Consumption (ltrs/year) for Avg. Daily Steam Generation
46,810 40,942
Avg. Bio-Diesel Consumption (ltrs/year) for Avg. Daily Steam Generation
47,126 41,218
Avg. Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 3.83 3.99
Revised Steam Generation Cost (INR/kg) 2.49 2.60
Fuel Savings16 -0.7% -0.7%
Total Heat Input - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (kCal/year) 45,79,63,375 40,05,54,431
Revised Heat Input (kCal/year) - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation
42,36,16,122 37,05,12,848
Total Fuel Cost - for Avg. Daily Steam Generation (INR/year) 25,31,612 22,14,256
Revised Total Fuel Cost for Steam Generation - (INR/year) 16,46,865 14,40,419
Annual Fuel Cost Savings (INR/year) 8,84,747 7,73,838
Annual Fuel Energy Savings (GJ/year) 144 126
16 Negative values indicate higher quantity of recommended fuel required to fulfil the energy needs compared to High Speed Diesel.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 58
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 59
Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Boiler System
• Thermal Efficiency Enhancement: Improvement of boiler efficiency to 93% would result
in fuel savings of 7.8% and 8.3% respectively for the GRTE and CRTE boilers, yielding cost
savings of INR 1.98 Lakhs/year and INR 1.83 Lakhs/year respectively.
• Fuel Saving Device (FLUX Maxiox): Installation of FLUX Maxiox would result in fuel
savings of 5% for each boiler system, with associated cost savings of INR 1.26 Lakhs/year
and INR 1.11 Lakhs/year for the GRTE and CRTE boilers respectively.
• Alternate Fuel Bio-Diesel: Switching to bio-diesel as the fuel for boilers would result in
higher fuel (bio-diesel) consumption compared to what would have been for HSD by
8.9% and 8.8% for GRTE and CRTE boilers but would yield cost savings of 8.50
Lakhs/year and INR 7.44 Lakhs/year respectively (Cost savings are higher due to the
lower cost of bio-diesel as compared to high speed diesel).
• Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with HSD: Adding the fuel additive with HSD would result in
fuel savings of 10% for each boiler system, leading to cost savings of INR 1.69 Lakhs/year
and INR 1.48 Lakhs/year for GRTE and CRTE boilers respectively.
• Use of KM+ Fuel Additive with Bio-Diesel: Switching to bio-diesel with addition of fuel
additives would result in higher fuel consumption by 0.7% for each boiler (compared to
use of HSD) but yield cost savings of INR 8.85 Lakhs/year and INR 7.74 Lakhs/year
respectively for GRTE and CRTE boilers.
4.5 Compressed Air System
4.5.1 GRTE and CRTE Compressed Air System Assessment
There are six compressors in all, four located in GRTE and two in CRTE with ratings and
specifications as mentioned below. All four compressors in GRTE plant have been installed on
the top floor of the plant and compressed air is drawn from them to the GRTE and RTC sections
of the plant. Both compressors in the CRTE plant have been installed on the ground floor. In the
GRTE section, the main application of compressed air is for retort machine operation and sealing
operation. In the RTC section, compressed air is used in packing related operations. During the
compressor audit, one of the compressors (RTC AC II) was not operational as per the demands of
the manufacturing process and has not been covered in the audit. The schematic diagram of
GRTE Compressors is as shown in Figure 21.
In the CRTE plant, only the higher capacity compressor (10 HP) is in regular operation and the
other one (7.5 HP) serves as a backup or is used only during high instantaneous demand. The
compressed air from these compressors is used in the Retort and for sealing of pouches. On
occasions when the Retort is not in operation, the 7.5 HP compressor is switched ON to making
it the main supply for the sealing process and the 10 HP compressor is idle.
Compressed Air System efficiency and performance was assessed through the Free Air Delivery
and Leakage Test (Pump-Up Method) process as prescribed by the BEE Energy Audit Manual.
The technical specifications, equipment nameplate (rating) details, as well as measured values
of compressor performance have been presented in Table 45 & Table 46. Multiple Power
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 60
Analysers were used to record power and time taken for loading and unloading cycles to fill the
compressor receiver with downstream air usage with all equipment across the plant stopped.
Figure 21 Schematic diagram of compressors - GRTE
Table 45 Compressor Rated Details
Air Compressor ID Make Model Max. Press. (Kg/cm²)
Rated Free Air Delivery (cfm)
Power (KW)
Storage Volume (m3)
GRTE AC III Atlas Copco GAE11FF 9.9 55.1 11 2
RTC AC IV-30 Atlas Copco GA 30+ AFF 7.4 202.9 30 2.4
RTC AC I-15 Atlas Copco GA-15 7.6 94.5 15 2.6
RTC AC II Atlas Copco GA 11 AEL 7.6 68.0 11 2
CRTE R Atlas Copco 9.8 N/A 7.5 4
Table 46 Field Measurement Data
Air Compressor ID
Initial Pressure P1 (kg/cm2)
Final Pressure after Filling P2 (kg/cm2)
Atm. Pressure P0 (kg/cm2)
Pump up time (min)
Power (KW)
GRTE AC III 1.5 8.6 0.9 11.9 10.8
RTC AC IV-30 1.4 8.2 0.9 3.52 31.25
AC-III
GA 11FF
AC-IV
GA 30+FF
AC-I
GA 15
AC-II
GA 11
JBT
Retort
Pouching
Section
Air
Receiver
Air
Receiver
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 61
RTC AC I-15 1.4 8.2 0.9 8.00 13.5
RTC AC II 1.4 8.2 0.9 N/A N/A
CRTE Retort 1.5 11.0 0.9 67.5 6.8
Based on the rated and measured data, the Isothermal Efficiency of the system as well as Free
Air Delivery was calculated using the equations presented below and the results are shown in
Table 47.
𝐼𝑠𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑘𝑊) = 𝑃1×𝑄𝑓× ln 𝑟
36.7
Where, P1 = Absolute Intake Pressure (kg/cm2), Qf = Free Air Delivered (m3/hr), and r = Pressure Ratio (P1/P2)
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 (𝑄𝑓 ,𝑁𝑚3
𝑚𝑖𝑛) =
𝑃2 − 𝑃1
𝑃0×
𝑉
𝑇
Where, P2 = Final Pressure after Filling (absolute, kg/cm2), P1 = Initial Pressure after Bleeding (absolute, kg/cm2), P0 = Atmospheric Pressure (absolute, kg/cm2), V = Storage Volume of Receiver, After Cooler, and Piping (m3), and T = Time taken to reach Pressure P2 (mins)
𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑄𝑡𝑦. ( 𝑁𝑚3
𝑚𝑖𝑛) =
𝑇
𝑇 + 𝑡×𝑄
Where, T = Time on-load (mins.), t = Time un-load (mins.), and Q = Free Air Delivered (m3/min)
Table 47 Compressor Efficiency Analysis
Air Compressor ID
Pressure Ratio (P2/P1)
Free Air Delivery (m³/min)
Free Air Delivery (cfm)
Iso-thermal Power (KW)
Iso-thermal efficiency (%)
GRTE AC III 5.69 1.40 48.4 5.90 54.5%
RTC AC IV-30 5.81 5.80 188 21.6 69.0%
RTC AC I-15 5.81 2.50 89.1 10.3 76.1%
CRTE Retort 7.28 0.60 22.1 3.10 45.0%
Leakage test was performed for all three operational compressors at GRTE and it was observed
that there was no reduction in the pressure in the air receiver tank indicating that all
compressors were performing considerably well. None of the compressors had any notable air
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 62
leakage this is due to periodic maintenance done by the Gits maintenance team, which is
commendable.
From the results of the free air delivery (FAD) test, it was observed that the measured FAD of all
three compressors were lesser than the rated FAD. This is very likely to be due to the higher air
inlet temperature into the compressors. A higher than expected inlet air temperature adversely
impacts compressor operation and is a source of reduced system efficiency. It is generally
accepted that a 40C rise in inlet temperature increases energy consumption by 1% to achieve the
same an equivalent output17. Table 48 shows estimated increase in power consumption by the
compressors because of higher intake temperatures. Cooler air intake would allow more
efficient compression. The de-rated free air delivery of all three compressors have also been
given in the below table. Estimated Relative Free Air Delivery Percentage is the amount of free
air delivered at average air intake temperature compared to free air delivered at ideal air intake
temperature.
17 Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy, Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities, Chapter 3.3 Compressed Air System, Table 3.3.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 63
Figure 22 Relative Free Air Delivery (%)
It can be seen from Figure 22 that there is a drop of 9% in the free air delivery with a rise of 28
degrees in the intake air temperature, with approximately 0.32% reduction in the free air
delivery per degree rise in the intake air temperature.
Table 48 De-Rating of Air Compressors
Air Compressor ID
Avg. Air Intake Temp. (°C)
Ideal Air Intake temp (°C)
Estimated Relative Free Air Delivery (%)
Estimated Increase in Power Consumption (%)
Free Air Delivery @ 32 °C (cfm)
GRTE AC III 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 52.1
RTC AC IV-30 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 192
RTC AC I-15 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 89.3
RTC AC II 32 15.5 95% 3.92% 64.3
CRTE Retort 33 15.5 94% 4.14% Data Unavailable
The pipe sizing for compressed air-flow was examined during the energy audit. Pipe sizing depends on the allowable velocity of compressed air in the pipeline. As per BEE, velocities between 6 to 10 m/s are usual and velocities in this range prevent excessive pressure drops while also allowing moisture to precipitate. The gas law dealing with the expansion of air, with pressure and temperature both varying simultaneously, is as given below:
102%
100%
98%
96%
94%
93%
91%
R² = 0.9976
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
102%
104%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Free
Air
Del
iver
y(%
)
Temperatures in Degree C
Relative Free Air Delivery at Diffrent Temperatures (%)
Relative Air Delivery (%) Expon. (Relative Air Delivery (%))
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 64
𝑃1 ∗𝑉1
𝑇1= 𝑃2 ∗
𝑉2
𝑇2
Where, P1, V1 and T1 are the original pressure, volume and temperature P2, V2 and T2 are the new pressure, volume and temperature
The compressor velocity assessment has been carried out based on the pipe size. It has been observed that RTC AC IV 30 and RTC AC I -15 have a velocity which overshoots the BEE specified acceptable velocity range (6-10 m/s), refer Table 49.
Table 49 Velocity Assessment Based on Piping Size
Compressor ID Dia of Pipe (NB) in inches
Quantity of compressed air flow (cfm)
Area of pipeline (m²)
Quantity of compressed air flow (m³/min)
quantity of air flow (m³/sec)
Measured velocity (m/s)
GRTE AC III 1 55.1 0.001 1.6 0.005 7.49
RTC AC IV-30 1.5 202.9 0.001 5.7 0.016 11.49
RTC AC I -15 1 94.5 0.001 2.7 0.008 12.58
RTC AC II 1 68.0 0.001 1.9 0.006 9.06
4.5.2 Energy Conservation Opportunity in Compressor System
4.5.2.1 Lowering the Air Intake Temperature
During the site visit, it was observed that the average temperature of the compressor room was
32 ᵒC which was higher than the ambient temperature. This is due to heat generation from the
compressed air system. By lowering the air intake temperature to ambient temperature
efficiency of the system can be increased. This can be achieved by insulation of the duct and
compressor room top. Reduction in the inlet air temperature by 4ᵒC would reduce the energy
consumption by 1% to achieve the same an equivalent output18.
Below table shows the energy savings through the lowering of air intake temperature at GRTE
plant. Lowering the air intake temperature to ambient air temperature, approximately 25,656
INR could be saved annually.
Table 50 Energy Savings by lowering the air intake temperature
Air Compressor ID
Compressor Room Temp. (ᵒC)
Revised Temperature (ᵒC)
Power Consump. (kW)
Revised Power Consumption (kW)
Power Saving (kW)
Energy Savings (kWh/yr)
Cost Savings (INR/yr)
Capital Cost of Insulation
GRTE AC III 32 28 10.8 10.6 0.20 712 6,131 3,318
RTC AC IV-30 32 28 31.3 30.8 0.45 1,628 14,025 2,986
18 Guidebook for National Certification Examination for Energy Managers and Energy Auditors, Bureau of Energy, Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities, Chapter 3.3 Compressed Air System, Table 3.3.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 65
RTC AC I-15 32 28 13.5 13.3 0.17 638 5,500 3,318
Total 55.6 54.7 0.82 2,978 25,656 9,622
4.5.2.2 Lowering the Set Pressure
Based on the meticulous feedback solicited from field personnel operating the compressed air
system, it was gleaned that none of the usage locations connected to the compressed air system
across the GRTE/RTC plant need compressed air at a pressure greater than 6.5 bar. The typical
pressure drops for a 100 CFM compressor are presented in Table 51. With an adequate size of
compressed air piping according to recommended standards (approximately 65 mm to 70 mm
bore), pressure drop in the header is expected to be approximately 0.2 to 0.25 kg/cm2 and at the
farthest point in distribution would be approximately 0.25 kg/cm2With the 50mm bore pipe size,
the estimated final pressure drop at farthest point was estimated to be 0.65 to 0.75 Kg /cm2.
The pressure at the generation point i.e. compressor GRTE AC III in the GRTE unit is 7.6 Kg/cm2,
and the final pressure at the farthest point requires 6.5 kg/cm2. This indicates scope for lowering
set pressure at compressor level.
Table 51 Pressure drops and power losses for different pipe sizes
CFM= 100 55 203 95
Pipe Bore (mm)
Pressure drop (bar)/ 100 meters
Equivalent Power Losses (kW)
Pressure drop (bar)/ 100 meters
Equivalent Power Losses (kW)
Pressure drop (bar)/ 100 meters
Equivalent Power Losses (kW)
Pressure drop (bar)/ 100 meters
Equivalent Power Losses (kW)
40 1.80 9.50 0.99 5.23 3.65 19.28 1.70 8.97
50 0.65 3.40 0.36 1.87 1.32 6.90 0.61 3.21
65 0.22 1.20 0.12 0.66 0.45 2.43 0.21 1.13
80 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.41 0.04 0.19
100 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.09
The consequent annual energy and cost savings for GRTE and CRTE air compressors are
presented in Table 52 below and indicate a potential for saving approximately 11,146 kWh/year
and an associated cost reduction of approximately INR 1,03,150 per year through this relatively
simple operational modification.
Table 52 Savings Summary by Reducing Delivery Pressure
Compressor ID
Revised Delivery Pressure (kg/cm2)
Revised Press. Ratio
Revised Iso-thermal Power (kW)
Power Reduction (%)
Power Reduction (kW)
Energy Saving (kWh/year)
Cost Saving (INR/year)
GRTE AC III 7.613 5.03 5.5 7.10% 0.4 1,526.9 14,130.8
RTC AC IV-30 7.213 5.10 21.7 7.38% 1.7 6,320.1 58,488.3
RTC AC I-15 7.213 5.10 9.5 7.38% 0.8 2,761.2 25,522.7
CRTE-R 10.013 6.62 2.9 4.80% 0.1 537.9 4,978.1
Total 11,146 1,03,150
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 66
The above recommendation would give best results when the leakage in compressors is
restricted to a minimum.
4.5.2.3 Waste Heat Recovery
Figure 23 shows that out of the total electricity consumed by any compressor, only 15% leads to generation of compressed air and the rest of the energy is lost in the form of mainly two components – one is loss of air due to leakages, artificial demand and inappropriate uses and the other is due to heat of compression. A good amount of this heat can be recovered for use in suitable operations. Two commonly known and possible utilities are heating air and heating water using the heat energy available from compressor operation, without affecting the compressor performance in any way. Energy recovery would not only lower the plant’s overall energy consumption but also reduce its environmental impact. The below equation gives the estimated waste heat which can be available for the heat recovery application.
𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 (𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑦𝑟)
= 0.80 ∗ 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝐵𝐻𝑃 ∗ 2545 (𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑏ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑟)
∗ 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
Where,
0.8 = Recoverable heat as a percentage of the unit’s output 2545 = Conversion factor
Table 53 Waste Heat available for recovery
Compressor ID
Rated Power (kW)
Power (BHP)
Waste Heat Available (BTU/hr)
Waste Heat Available (kCal/hr)
Power Savings (kW)
GRTE AC III 11 15 30,033 7,573 8.8
RTC AC IV-30 30 40 81,908 20,654 24.0
RTC AC I-15 15 20 40,954 10,327 12.0
RTC AC II 11 15 30,033 7,573 8.8
Total 1,82,928 46,127 53.6
Figure 23 Heat Loss Diagram for Compressor
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 67
(Image Source: Heat Recovery and Compressed Air Systems by Frank Moskowitz for the Compressed Air
Challenge ®)
An appreciable utilization of the waste heat from compressors by Gits was the drying of laundry in the area above the compressors, refer Figure 24 The hot air emanating from the compressors was allowed to rise in an enclosed section right above the cabinet housing all the compressors and the heat energy was used to dry the laundry from the premises of the plant, thereby reducing the operational load on the dryers of the washing machines. Out of the available 53.6 kW for recovery, approximately 17.6 kW worth of power is being utilized for drying laundry at the plant. This number (17.6 kW) has been arrived at by accounting for the amount of dryer load19 which has been substituted by this heat.
Figure 24 Drying of laundry using waste heat from compressors
Table 54 Estimated drying (washing machine) energy saved
Rated power of dryers (kW)
Estimated Energy Consumption20 (kWh/yr)
Estimated Cost Savings (INR/yr)
17.6 4,818 41,506
Justified Use of Compressed Air
Compressed air is a costly commodity as is evident from results of Leakage Test and FAD Test. The exhaustive site audit performed has yielded vital observations related to potential for more prudent use of this valuable resource. It has been observed compressed air is routinely employed for cleaning of clothes and other floor areas. An immediate low hanging fruit opportunity available to the operational team for energy reduction is to explore the possibility of using other equivalent equipment in clean room areas for air washing and any other such
19 Total dryer load as per specifications of the equipment collected during site visit 20 Based on assumptions: (i) 2 dryers working, (ii) operational hours = 1.5 hours every alternate day
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 68
areas so that such points may be cut off from compressed air line. These could be served by dedicated blowers instead which require much less energy to perform an identical function.
Summary Energy Conservation Opportunities – Compressed Air Systems
• Lowering the air intake temperature (GRTE/RTC): Reducing the air intake temperature
in the GRTE plant to 28 degree Celsius (against the measured temperature of 32 degree
Celsius) would result in energy savings of 2,978 kWh/yr and an associated cost saving of
INR 25,656 per year. The estimated payback period would be a meagre 0.4 years.
• Lowering the Set Pressure of Air Compressor (GRTE/RTC): Reducing delivery pressure
of compressors in GRTE plant by 1kg/cm² results in 10,608 kWh/year energy savings and
an associated cost reduction of approximately INR 98,172 per year.
• Lowering the Set Pressure of Air Compressor (CRTE): Reducing delivery pressure of
compressors in CRTE plant by 1kg/cm² results in 537.9 kWh/year energy savings and an
associated cost reduction of approximately INR 4,978 per year.
• Waste Heat Recovery – 46,127 kCal/hr worth of waste heat energy is available from
compressors at GRTE which could lead to power savings equivalent to 53.6 kW.
4.6 Miscellaneous
4.6.1 IDEC at Dryer Section (GRTE Plant) for Comfort Cooling
The high equipment load in the dryer section along with the exposure of freshly dried material
at a temperature of close to 80⁰C to the room21 results in high room temperatures affecting the
comfort of working occupants during the day. To address this heat load, Indirect Direct
Evaporative Coolers are recommended to be employed in this section.
Desirable and expected outcomes from use of IDEC systems here will be in terms of improved
productivity and subsequently, reduction in time lost due to issues affecting productivity. The
reported frequency of health issues can also be expected to drop. Key environmental factors
affecting productivity include thermal conditions, indoor air quality, acoustics and lighting and
Indirect Direct Evaporative Coolers will take care of the thermal conditions and the indoor air
quality, relieving any form of thermal stress experienced by the occupants during peak
operational hours, especially in the summer months.
Based on cBalance’s visit to the plant with HMX personnel, the best arrangement was
understood to be spot cooling over the pathways to achieve desired conditions without
disturbing the processing environment. Space cooling would mean higher volume of airflow into
the room which could lead to diffusion of powdered particles. Spot cooling was identified as the
solution. As per the preliminary proposal, there will be 7 spots of 570 CFM along the pathway
and air will be drawn from a 4000 CFM outdoor unit through Galvanized Iron (GI) ducting. Table
55 shows the estimations for cooling requirement and the recommended system specifications.
21 The material removed from the driers post drying operation is around 80⁰C and is allowed to cool to upto 60-65⁰C before it is used in the next process.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 69
through GI ducting. Table 55 shows the estimations for cooling requirement and the
recommended system specifications.
Table 55 Indirect Direct Evaporative Cooler in Dryer Section
Parameter Value Units
Location Hadapsar, Pune
Cooled Air Requirement 4,000 CFM
Air throw per spot 570 CFM
No of Spots 7 Nos.
Equipment Cost 1,50,000 INR
Installation Cost 3,06,850 INR
From further discussions with the Gits team, allowance for regular (at least weekly) cleaning of
the ducts to prevent undesirable accumulation of dust and other particulate matter present in
the process environment was understood to be a key consideration in selection of the material
and shape of the ducts for circulating the cooled air. Rectangular ducts have been ruled out
since they do not meet this requirement and the ducting team is currently exploring alternatives
like fabric ducting, round GI or Stainless Steel (SS) ducts and powder coating on ducts to account
for the constraints while satisfying the comfort needs. High-efficiency particulate arrestance
(HEPA) filters are also being considered to meet the air quality standards for Food & Beverage
industries based on inputs from the Gits team.
4.6.2 Solar PV at GRTE Plant
Energy generation of 15kWp by use of solar photovoltaics has been proposed by Green Power,
Pune and details of the proposed system can be found in Table below.
Table 56 Solar PV at GRTE Plant
System Capacity (kWp)
Shadow free area (Sq. ft.)
Generation per day (kWh/day)
Total Units generated annually (kWh/yr)
Energy Cost (INR/kWh)
Cost Savings (INR/yr)
Capital Cost (INR)
Inflation adjusted payback period22 (yrs)
15 2000 75 22,500 8.61 1,93,725 14,75,000 6.49
It can be seen that for the roof-top area of 2000 sq. ft., a 15 kWp system is expected to generate
75 units of electricity per day assuming an average of 5 sunny hours per day. The annual energy
generation of 22,500 kWh will reduce the electrical load on the plant by 2% and savings of INR
1.93 lakhs are expected with a payback period of 6.49 years. The payback period is reasonable
considering that there would be no recurring costs over this installation.
4.6.3 Atmospheric Vacuum Dryer
Substances that contain water can be dried in a number of ways. Most drying processes today use heated air to remove the moisture from the substances. Heating the air requires energy. This is provided mostly by electricity, steam or hot water. Such heat processes are costly, may cause damage to heat sensitive materials and remove many other volatile substances that constitute
22 Annual escalation of tariff assumed to be 5.81% (based on INR 0.50 rise per year)
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 70
the fragrance, flavor and the taste of the substance, effectively changing the properties of the substance. A more efficient way of extracting water is by using vacuum. While this won’t achieve any "Cooking", it will still remove the volatiles.
AtVac drying, also called "Atmospheric Vacuum Drying", is an innovative process that works at room temperature and pressure. The process removes only the water from the substance while leaving the volatile and essential substances intact. The machine proposed by Panasia Engineers consumes 1 KW to provides a combined drying effect equal to 10 KW. The "Vacuum" in the system is formed by removing most of the water vapor from the air, thus creating a "Vapour Vacuum" in the drying chamber, at atmospheric pressure. The internal vapor pressure of the substance causes the internal moisture to flow out easily.
Features: 1. The machine works in two stages:
• The first stage removes water until the moisture level is less than 6 grams per kilogram of dry air.
• The second stage further extracts water to ensure that the leaving air has a moisture level of less than 2 grams per kilogram.
2. After the second stage is completed, the air is almost free of moisture, and therefore vapor vacuum is achieved.
3. Only the moisture is removed, while the substance’s fragrance and taste remains the same after drying.
4. The moist air of the room is recycled and the condensed water, being very pure, can be reused.
5. The machine recycles the heat and reuses it, effectively reducing the overall energy consumption.
Adopting this innovative technology post evaluation of suitable applications at Gits does not only promise savings in terms of energy and costs but it would also mean a positive disruption from the energy intensive mainstream technologies used in the drying industry. A sample of the maida used in some products was tested on this machine. The results were considered unsatisfactory because the desired de-moisturization was not achieved within the test period. Based on manufacturer’s claims, the machine is expected to save 40% of energy compared to a conventional (atmospheric) tray drying system (assuming that the desired results are being achieved). Preliminary analysis indicates that this is equivalent to energy cost savings of INR 283 per 3-hour batch per dryer23.The machine still being in the development phase however, the designers are willing to customize it to provide the requisite drying based on further research aided by inputs from the Gits team. Based on discussions with the Gits team, it has been decided that feasibilities of allied research with prominent technological research institution ICT (Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai) will be mutually decided upon.
23 Assumed for savings estimation: Dryer load = 25.5 kW, Energy charge = INR 9.25 per kWh, batch duration = 3 hours
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 71
5 Conclusion The total current annual electrical energy consumption of the GRTE Plant of Gits Food Pvt. Ltd. is
approximately 11.7 Lakh kWh/yr (0.98 Lakh kWh/month) and that of CRTE is 2.11 Lakh kWh/yr
(0.176 lakh kWh/month). In addition to electricity, the GRTE Plant consumes 78.6 thousand
liters per year of High Speed Diesel for thermal applications and for power generation. Similarly,
the CRTE plant consumes 42.8 thousand liters per year for thermal energy and for power
generation. The average energy cost being paid by the facility is INR 15.6 Lakhs per month and
INR 1.88 Crores per year. GRTE contributes 76.5% to the total annual energy bill and CRTE
accounts for 23.5% of the total annual energy cost.
The overall benefits of proceeding with implementation of the various interventions proposed in
the earlier sections are substantial; Gits has the opportunity to save 0.72 Lakh kWh/yr and
15,911 ltrs/yr of High Speed Diesel which will together cut down its overall energy cost by
14.8%. The consolidated environmental, cost and energy conservation impacts of all proposed
alternatives has been presented in Table 57 below.
Table 57 Overall Conservation Summary from recommended measures
Parameter Value Units
Capital Cost 3.47 Lakh INR
Energy Conservation - Electrical 72,205 kWh/yr
Energy Conservation – Liquid Fuel (HSD) 15,911 Ltr/year
GHG Mitigation 140 MT CO2e/yr
Cost Savings 27.8 Lakh INR/yr
Payback Period 0.13 yrs
% Energy Conservation - Electrical 5.22% % kWh/yr
% Energy Conservation - Thermal 13.1% % ltrs of fuel/yr
% Energy Cost Conservation 14.8% % INR/yr
CONTEXT
Trees 559 trees/yr
Homes 60 homes/yr
Cars 155 cars/yr
The overarching conclusion from the Energy Audit process was that Gits can achieve the
following positive impacts on the environment and its operational costs:
• Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 140 metric tonnes of CO2 per year (equivalent
to planting approximately 559 trees every year).
• Conserve 0.72 lakh units of electricity every year (enough to power 60 average Indian
homes per year).
• Reduce its operational cost by INR 27.8 Lakhs every year.
• The capital cost for implementing all the proposed projects is approximately INR 3.47
Lakh (All costs are only equipment cost).
• The payback period for these investments is less than a year.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 72
It must be noted that the actual savings may vary in the range ± 20% of the indicated values
depending upon site conditions and other unforeseen variables.
The recommended priority list for implementation of all energy related interventions proposed
follows the order of the relative Marginal Abatement Cost Curve specifically developed for the
facility as the culminating outcome of the Energy Audit.
The MAC Curves for the facility have been presented below in Figure 25.
Figure 25 MAC Curve for Energy Conservation Opportunities at Gits Food
-60,000
-50,000
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
MA
C:
INR
/tC
O2
Thousand tonnes of carbon saved/year
A B C D E
F G H I J
K L M N O
P Q R S T
U V W X Reduction target
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 73
Table 58 Energy Efficiency Roadmap Projects & Marginal Abatement Costs Summary
Pr. ID System Project Description Capital Cost (INR)
Annual Savings (INR) Payback Period (yrs)
Annual average CO2
savings (MT CO2e/yr)
A Boiler System CRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Bio Diesel Fuel
80,209 7,73,838 0.10 8.90
B Boiler System GRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Bio Diesel Fuel
91,705 8,84,747 0.10 10.2
C Boiler System GRTE Boiler Efficiency Improvement 0 1,97,668 0.00 9.70
D Boiler System CRTE Boiler Efficiency Improvement 0 1,83,281 0.00 9.00
E Boiler System GRTE Boiler Installation of Flux Maxiox 1,20,000 1,26,581 0.90 6.20
F Boiler System CRTE Boiler Installation of Flux Maxiox 1,20,000 1,10,713 1.10 5.40
G Boiler System GRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Existing Fuel 73,696 1,47,730 0.50 10.9
H DG Set DG Set GRTE Use of Fuel Additives (KM+) 18,111 36,305 0.50 2.70
I DG Set DG Set CRTE Use of Fuel Additives (KM+) 3,514 7,044 0.50 0.50
J Boiler System GRTE Boiler Fuel Additive (KM+) with Existing Fuel 84,259 1,68,903 0.50 12.5
K GRTE Cooling Tower Shutting down the cooling tower 0 2,73,096 0.00 39.9
L Lighting Improve ILER by Reducing RI 0.1 2,69,113 0.00 39.3
M Compressed Air System
RTC AC IV 30 - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 53,776 0.00 7.90
N Compressed Air System
RTC AC I 15 - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 25,553 0.00 3.70
O Compressed Air System
GRTE AC III - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 14,131 0.00 2.10
P Compressed Air System
CRTE (Retort) - Reduce Pressure by 1kg/cm2 0.1 4,978 0.00 0.70
Q Lighting Replace 18W CFL with 7W LED 10,740 23,447 0.50 3.40
R Compressed Air System
RTC AC IV 30 - Lowering the air intake temperature 2,986 14,025 0.20 2.20
S Compressed Air System
GRTE AC III - Lowering the air intake temperature 3,318 6,132 0.50 1.00
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 74
T Compressed Air System
RTC AC I 15 - Lowering the air intake temperature 3,318.0 5,500 0.60 0.90
U DG Set DG Set GRTE - Use of Flux Maxiox (Fuel Saving Device)
1,44,000 27,208 5.30 1.30
V Lighting Replace 28W T5 with 18W LED 3,00,385 66,522 4.50 9.70
W Solar Rooftop System Installation
15kW Solar Panel Installation 14,75,000 1,93,832 6.50 30.4
X DG Set DG Set CRTE - Use of Flux Maxiox (Fuel Saving Device)
72,000 5,279 13.6 0.30
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report – April 2017 Page 75
For effective implementation of project, it is opined that a PMC (Project Management
Consultant) may be appointed by the management. The PMC can prepare blueprints, draft
specifications and BOQs, execute floating of enquiries, and conduct techno-commercial
negotiations with approved vendors. The PMC will also oversee project implementation and
may be entrusted with any relevant energy saving certification.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 76
6 Appendix
Appendix I-A
Energy Bill Summary – GRTE
Month Metered kWh
Max. Demand [kVA]
Recorded PF
Billed Demand Charges (INR.)
Energy Charges (INR.)
Excess. Demand (kVA)
Excess Demand Charges (INR.)
PF Incentive (INR.)
Total Payable Amount (INR)
Jul-16 1,13,727 699 1.000 1,06,480 7,63,108 0 0 -64,702 9,55,861
Jun-16 87,748 550 1.000 1,04,280 5,88,789 0 0 -53,015 7,82,703
May-16 1,13,153 550 1.000 1,04,720 7,59,257 0 0 -68,790 10,15,551
Apr-16 1,05,329 550 1.000 1,00,980 7,06,758 0 0 -62,877 9,28,423
Mar-16 1,00,505 550 1.000 1,02,740 6,74,389 0 0 -58,145 8,58,833
Feb-16 91,450 550 0.998 99,880 6,13,630 0 0 -53,175 7,85,378
Jan-16 76,920 550 0.999 93,280 5,16,133 0 0 -45,241 6,68,124
Dec-15 99,962 550 0.999 1,02,300 6,70,745 0 0 -60,738 8,96,680
Nov-15 64,857 550 0.995 1,02,080 4,35,190 0 0 -41,758 6,16,126
Oct-15 1,36,572 524 1.000 1,21,000 9,16,398 0 0 -81,809 12,07,921
Sep-15 1,25,134 502 1.000 1,15,280 8,39,649 0 0 -72,651 10,73,056
Aug-15 Data unavailable for August 2015
Jul-15 1,02,984 1,02,960 6,91,023 0 0 -59,959 8,84,499
Jun-15 70,702 72,200 4,74,410 0 0 -41,302 6,09,252
May-15 99,855 479 1.000 79,420 6,32,082 0 0 -45,957 6,79,622
Apr-15 90,520 479 1.000 86,450 5,72,992 5 1,425 -53,807 7,93,593
Mar-15 95,222 479 1.000 84,360 6,02,755 0 0 -56,099 8,27,458
Feb-15 95,422 479 1.000 79,230 6,56,504 0 0 -51,383 7,56,353
Jan-15 87,109 479 1.000 73,910 6,81,192 0 0 -54,300 7,98,196
Average 97,621 1.000 96,197 6,55,278 -56,984 8,40,979
Total 17,57,171 17,31,550 1,17,95,004 -10,25,708 1,51,37,627
Appendix I-B
Energy Bill Summary - CRTE
Month Metered kWh
Max. Demand (kVA)
Recorded PF
Billed Demand Charges (INR.)
Energy Charges (INR.)
Excess. Demand (kVA)
Excess Demand Charges (INR.)
PF Incentive (INR.)
Total Payable Amount (INR)
Aug-16 9,797 134 0.954 13,050 68,383 34 7,650 - 1,04,175
Jul-16 20,692 134 0.963 13,050 1,44,430 34 7,650 -1,742 2,03,413
Jun-16 17,895 134 0.954 13,050 1,24,907 34 7,650 - 1,82,536
May-16 13,167 134 0.957 13,050 91,906 34 7,650 -1,155 1,36,117
Apr-16 16,389 134 0.957 13,050 1,14,395 34 7,650 -1,393 1,60,665
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 77
Mar-16 19,887 134 0.957 13,050 1,38,811 34 7,650 -1,651 1,88,982
Feb-16 18,909 134 0.956 13,050 1,31,985 34 7,650 -1,585 1,81,689
Jan-16 15,537 134 0.955 13,050 1,08,448 34 7,650 -1,369 1,58,003
Dec-15 15,819 134 0.953 13,050 1,10,417 34 7,650 - 1,62,285
Nov-15 22,005 134 0.960 13,050 1,53,595 34 7,650 -1,880 2,15,007
Oct-15 15,810 120 0.957 11,700 1,10,354 20 4,500 -1,332 1,51,334
Sep-15 20,823 120 0.958 11,700 1,45,345 20 4,500 -1,716 1,92,475
Aug-15 Data unavailable for August 2015
Jul-15 19,324 118 0.960 11,550 1,34,882 18 4,050 -1,602 1,79,461
Jun-15 20,564 118 0.959 10,010 1,44,154 18 3,510 -1,661 1,85,738
May-15 Data unavailable for May 2015
Apr-15 15,528 118 0.969 10,010 1,08,851 18 3,510 -2,714 1,50,291
Mar-15 15,417 118 0.960 10,010 1,17,940 18 3,510 -1,363 1,52,275
Feb-15 20,521 118 0.967 10,010 1,79,559 18 3,510 -4,023 2,20,681
Jan-15 18,577 118 0.961 10,010 1,62,549 18 3,510 -1,875 2,07,856
Average 17,592 0.959 11,972 1,27,273 27.1 5,950 -1,503 1,74,055
Total 3,16,661 2,15,500 22,90,909 488 1,07,100 -27,061 31,32,983
Appendix II
Diesel Consumption Details
Month Running Hours (Hrs) Consumption (Ltrs) Energy Generated (kWh)
DG1 (600 kVA)
DG2 (125 kVA)
DG1 (600 kVA)
DG2 (125 kVA)
DG1 (600 kVA)
DG2 (125 kVA)
Jul-16 30.0 13.0 1,907 451 7,140 440
Jun-16 30.8 18.0 1,551 321 5,180 296
May-16 14.0 6.6 923 213 2,240 68
Apr-16 5.8 24.1 568 27 1,800 20
Mar-16 4.3 4.5 469 87 1,220 24
Feb-16 5.7 3.0 330 9 800 24
Jan-16 1.1 12.6 121 31 200 24
TOTAL 91.7 81.6 5,869 1,139 18,580 896
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 78
Appendix III-A
Area Wise Indoor Lighting Details – GRTE
Area Reference Fixture Type
Fixture Wattage
Qty Total Watts
Average Lux level
Mini Storage Space behind stairs T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 80
Storage of Spices and laminate rolls T5 Tube 1×28 W 32 896 61
Main storage space T5 Tube 1×28 W 49 1,372 32
Main storage space T5 Tube 1×14 W 7 98 32
Urad Dal Storage T5 Tube 1x28 W 12 336 61
Dispatch Section T5 Tube 1x28 W 5 140 216
Lab (next to dispatch) T5 Tube 1x28 W 2 56 64
wrapping + storage T5 Tube 1x28 W 60 1,680 60
export finished goods store T5 Tube 1x28 W 4 112 27
FFS T5 Tube 1x28 W 8 224 24
Dryer and Mixer T5 Tube 1x28 W 38 1,064 41
Dairymate section T5 Tube 1x28 W 2 56 168
Retort Section T5 Tube 1x28 W 15 420 166
Pouching T5 Tube 1x28 W 14 392 66
Cooking Section (Tilting Pan) T5 Tube 1x28 W 8 224 58
Preparation Section T5 Tube 1x28 W 14 392 55
JBT Crates and Pouches Storage (Dispatch) T5 Tube 1x28 W 90 2,520 93
Storage Room (next to Dispatch) T5 Tube 1x28 W 92 2,576 107
Storage Room (next to Dispatch) LED 1×18 W 50 900 107
Entrance Lobby T5 Tube 2×28 W 2 112 159
Corridor/ Stairs T5 Tube 2×28 W 2 112 163
Admin Office - Reception Area CFL 2x18 W 8 288 97
Admin Office - Office area CFL 2x18 W 59 2,124 30
Around Manager's Cabin (used for storage) T5 Tube 1x28 W 6 168 41
Kitchen (QA lab) T5 Tube 1x28 W 3 84 98
Lab 2 T5 Tube 1x28 W 13 364 32
Manager’s Cabin T5 Tube 1x28 W 2 56 70
Appendix III-B
Area Wise Indoor Lighting Details - CRTE
Area Reference Fixture Type Fixture Wattage
Qty Total Watts
Average Lux level
Pouching T5 Tube 1×28 W 7 196 60
Cabin (Retort Control Room) T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 75
Corridor T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 34
Retort Room T5 Tube 1×28 W 8 224 67
Maintenance T5 Tube 1×28 W 6 168 43
Crate Storage T5 Tube 2×28W 8 448 131
Utensil washing area T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 140
Cooking section T5 Tube 1×28 W 7 196 121
Preparation Area T5 Tube 1×28 W 16 448 58
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 79
Refrigeration Area T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 38
Material Reception T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 32
Dry Material Store T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 36
Cabin T5 Tube 1×28 W 1 28 31
Process Section T5 Tube 1×28 W 2 56 31
Near main entrance - vegetable area T5 Tube 1×28 W 9 252 52
Appendix IV
Maintenance Measures for Electrical and Thermal Utilities24
Compressors
• Consider variable speed drive for variable load on positive displacement compressors.
• Use a synthetic lubricant if the compressor manufacturer permits it.
• Be sure lubricating oil temperature is not too high (oil degradation and lowered viscosity) and not too low (condensation contamination).
• Change the oil filter regularly.
• Periodically inspect compressor intercoolers for proper functioning.
• Use waste heat from a very large compressor to power an absorption chiller or preheat process or utility feeds.
Compressed Air
• Install a control system to coordinate multiple air compressors.
• Study part-load characteristics and cycling costs to determine the most-efficient mode for operating multiple air compressors.
• Avoid over sizing -- match the connected load.
• Load up modulation-controlled air compressors. (They use almost as much power at partial load as at full load.)
• Turn off the back-up air compressor until it is needed.
• Reduce air compressor discharge pressure to the lowest acceptable setting. (Reduction of 1 kg/cm2 air pressure (8 kg/cm2 to 7 kg/cm2) would result in 9% input power savings. This will also reduce compressed air leakage rates by 10%)
24 Sources:
(i) BEE Checklist & Tips for Energy Efficiency in Electrical Utilities
(ii) BEE Checklist & Tips for Energy Efficiency in Thermal Utilities
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 80
• Use the highest reasonable dryer dew point settings.
• Turn off refrigerated and heated air dryers when the air compressors are off.
• Use a control system to minimize heatless desiccant dryer purging.
• Minimize purges, leaks, excessive pressure drops, and condensation accumulation. (Compressed air leak from 1 mm hole size at 7 kg/cm2 pressure would mean power loss equivalent to 0.5 kW)
• Use drain controls instead of continuous air bleeds through the drains.
• Consider engine-driven or steam-driven air compression to reduce electrical demand charges.
• Replace standard V-belts with high-efficiency flat belts as the old V-belts wear out.
• Use a small air compressor when major production load is off.
• Take air compressor intake air from the coolest (but not air conditioned) location. (Every 5°C reduction in intake air temperature would result in 1% reduction in compressor power consumption)
• Use an air-cooled aftercooler to heat building makeup air in winter.
• Be sure that heat exchangers are not fouled (e.g. -- with oil).
• Be sure that air/oil separators are not fouled.
• Monitor pressure drops across suction and discharge filters and clean or replace filters promptly upon alarm.
• Use a properly sized compressed air storage receiver. Minimize disposal costs by using lubricant that shows demulsibility (ability to release water) and is an effective oil-water separator.
• Consider alternatives to compressed air such as blowers for cooling, hydraulic rather than air cylinders, electric rather than air actuators, and electronic rather than pneumatic controls.
• Use nozzles or venturi-type devices rather than blowing with open compressed air lines.
• Check for leaking drain valves on compressed air filter/regulator sets. Certain rubber-type valves may leak continuously after they age and crack.
• In dusty environments, control packaging lines with high-intensity photocell units instead of standard units with continuous air purging of lenses and reflectors.
Cooling Towers
• Control cooling tower fans based on leaving water temperatures.
• Control to the optimum water temperature as determined from cooling tower and chiller performance data.
• Use two-speed or variable-speed drives for cooling tower fan control if the fans are few.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 81
Stage the cooling tower fans with on-off control if there are many.
• Turn off unnecessary cooling tower fans when loads are reduced.
• Cover hot water basins (to minimize algae growth that contributes to fouling).
• Balance flow to cooling tower hot water basins.
• Periodically clean plugged cooling tower water distribution nozzles.
• Install new nozzles to obtain a more-uniform water pattern.
• Replace splash bars with self-extinguishing PVC cellular-film fill.
• On old counterflow cooling towers, replace old spray-type nozzles with new square-spray ABS practically-non-clogging nozzles.
• Replace slat-type drift eliminators with high-efficiency, low-pressure-drop, self-extinguishing, PVC cellular units.
• If possible, follow manufacturer's recommended clearances around cooling towers and relocate or modify structures, signs, fences, dumpsters, etc. that interfere with air intake or exhaust.
• Optimize cooling tower fan blade angle on a seasonal and/or load basis.
• Correct excessive and/or uneven fan blade tip clearance and poor fan balance.
• Use a velocity pressure recovery fan ring.
• Divert clean air-conditioned building exhaust to the cooling tower during hot weather.
• Re-line leaking cooling tower cold water basins.
• Check water overflow pipes for proper operating level.
• Optimize chemical use.
• Consider side stream water treatment.
• Restrict flows through large loads to design values.
• Shut off loads that are not in service.
• Take blowdown water from the return water header.
• Optimize blowdown flow rate.
• Automate blowdown to minimize it.
• Send blowdown to other uses (Remember, the blowdown does not have to be removed at the cooling tower. It can be removed anywhere in the piping system.)
• Implement a cooling tower winterization plan to minimize ice build-up.
• Install interlocks to prevent fan operation when there is no water flow.
DG Sets
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 82
• Optimize loading
• Use waste heat to generate steam/hot water /power an absorption chiller or preheat process or utility feeds.
• Use jacket and head cooling water for process needs
• Clean air filters regularly
• Insulate exhaust pipes to reduce DG set room temperatures.
BEE Checklist & Tips for Energy Efficiency in Thermal Utilities
Boilers
• Preheat combustion air with waste heat. (22°C reduction in flue gas temperature increases boiler efficiency by 1%)
• Use variable speed drives on large boiler combustion air fans with variable flows.
• Burn wastes if permitted.
• Insulate exposed heated oil tanks.
• Clean burners, nozzles, strainers, etc.
• Inspect oil heaters for proper oil temperature.
• Close burner air and/or stack dampers when the burner is off to minimize heat loss up the stack.
• Improve oxygen trim control (e.g. -- limit excess air to less than 10% on clean fuels). (5% reduction in excess air increases boiler efficiency by 1% or: 1% reduction of residual oxygen in stack gas increases boiler efficiency by 1%)
• Automate/optimize boiler blowdown. Recover boiler blowdown heat.
• Use boiler blowdown to help warm the back-up boiler.
• Optimize deaerator venting.
• Inspect door gaskets.
• Inspect for scale and sediment on the water side. (A 1 mm thick scale (deposit) on the water side could increase fuel consumption by 5 to 8%.)
• Inspect for soot, fly-ash, and slag on the fire side. (A 3-mm thick soot deposition on the heat transfer surface can cause an increase in fuel consumption to the tune of 2.5%)
• Optimize boiler water treatment.
• Add an economizer to preheat boiler feedwater using exhaust heat.
• Recycle steam condensate.
• Study part-load characteristics and cycling costs to determine the most-efficient mode for operating multiple boilers.
Gits Food Unit Energy Audit Report - April 2017 Page 83
• Consider multiple or modular boiler units instead of one or two large boilers.
Steam System
• Fix steam leaks and condensate leaks. (A 3-mm diameter hole on a pipe line carrying 7 Kg/cm2 steam would waste 33 Kilo liters of fuel oil per year).
• Accumulate work orders for repair of steam leaks that can't be fixed during the heating season due to system shutdown requirements. Tag each such leak with a durable tag with a good description.
• Use back pressure steam turbines to produce lower steam pressures.
• Use more-efficient steam de-superheating methods.
• Ensure process temperatures are correctly controlled.
• Maintain lowest acceptable process steam pressures.
• Reduce hot water wastage to drain.
• Remove or blank off all redundant steam piping.
• Ensure condensate is returned or re-used in the process. (6°C raise in feed water temperature by economizer/condensate recovery corresponds to a 1% saving in fuel consumption, in boiler)
• Preheat boiler feed-water.
• Recover boiler blowdown.
• Check operation of steam traps.
• Remove air from indirect steam using equipment (0.25 mm thick air film offers the same resistance to heat transfer as a 330-mm thick copper wall)
• Inspect steam traps regularly and repair malfunctioning traps promptly.
• Consider recovery of vent steam (e.g. -- on large flash tanks).
• Use waste steam for water heating.
• Use an absorption chiller to condense exhaust steam before returning the condensate to the boiler.
• Use electric pumps instead of steam ejectors when cost benefits permit.