Assessment Recommendations Number of BP Tool AR Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Quaternary Quaternary Quaternary Implementat AR Number ARC Code APP Code AR Name AR Author Other Cost Incremental Pages Used Description Savings Savings Cost Savings Savings Cost Savings Savings Cost Savings Savings Cost ion Cost # chip bags prior to disposal and None Compact 3.1161 Process Support This will lower the Insert Name dministrative CostsQuantity Source A removal.Waste Compactor number of trash pickups required, reducing associated annual costs by $4,027. Consumption -978 0 Savings Source 4,691 Electrical Quantity Savings Electrical Demand Quantity -71 Source -123 Savings -593 Source 0 Quantity 0 Savings 0 14,500 N Resource Streams Source Name Source Code Units Electrical EC kWh (site) Consumption Electrical ED kW Months / Demand Other EF no yr units Natural Fees ElectricalGas E2 MMBtu L.P.G. E3 MMBtu #1 Fuel Oil E4 MMBtu #2 Fuel Oil E5 MMBtu #4 Fuel Oil E6 MMBtu #6 Fuel Oil E7 MMBtu Coal E8 MMBtu Wood E9 MMBtu Paper E10 MMBtu Other Gas E11 MMBtu Other Energy E12 MMBtu Water W1 Gallons Disposal Other Liquid W2 Gallons (non-haz) Other Liquid W3 Gallons (haz) Solid Waste W4 Pounds (non-haz) Solid Waste W5 Pounds (haz) Gaseous W6 Pounds Waste Personnel R1 no units Changes Administrative R2 no units Costs Primary Raw R3 no units Material Ancillary R4 no units Material Cost Water R5 no units Consumption One-time R6 no units Revenue Primary P1 no units Product By-product P2 no units Production Increase in P3 % Production Application Codes Application APP Code Examples Manufacturing 1 Process Heat Process Process 2 Recovery, Air Support Building and 3 Compressors, Lights, Grounds Administrative 4 HVAC, Taxes, Burn Inventory Production Units Display Units Rutgers Units Not Available Not Available Pieces Pieces Pounds Pounds Tons Tons BBL BBL 1000's Gallons Thousand 1000's ft./sq. Gallons Thousand ft. Bushels Feed or Bushels BP Tools Tool Name Tool None Desciption None AM+ AirMaster+ CWSAT Chilled Water FSAT System Fan System MM+ Assessment MotorMaster+ NxEAT 4.0 Nox and PHAST Energy Process PSAT Heating Pump System SSTS Assessment Steam System ASD Tool Suite ASDMaster: Adjustable AR No. # - Waste Compactor Recommendation Compact chip bags prior to disposal and removal. This will lower the number of trash pickups required, reducing associated annual costs by $4,027. Assessment Recommendation Savings Summary Source Quantity Units Cost Savings Administrative Costs no units $4,691 Electrical Consumption -978 kWh (site) ($71) Electrical Demand -123 kW Months / yr ($593) Total -0.3 MMBtu $4,027 Assessment Recommendation Cost Summary Description Cost Payback Implementation Cost $14,500 3.6 Facility Background The facility currently disposes of all chip bags that did not meet quality standards. Plant personnel informed analysts that this waste accounts for 5 pickup loads per month. Each load has an associated weight, pickup, and travel cost. The chip bags are mostly air weight, but the dumpster is entirely full for every pickup. Technology Background A compactor can be used to reduce the volume of waste streams. The waste weight will remain the same so there will be no savings from the total amount of waste produced. However, savings will occur because waste volume will be reduced by approximately 80% which will decrease the number of times the dumpster will need to be emptied, therefore resulting in lower pick up fees. Compactors are run very infrequently and are relatively efficient when run, meaning the amount of energy consumed by the compactor will be low. Compactors come in a variety of mounting configurations, including free standing and through-the-wall types. It is at the discretion of facility personnel to select the compactor that will best serve the facility layout since the difference in type does not alter the compactor effectiveness. Proposal Install a waste compactor to compact all chip bags prior to disposal in order to reduce the number of trash pickups. This will reduce the overall volume of garbage produced, reducing associated trash pickups by 80%. By reducing the number of pickups, the plant will save $4,027 annually with an implementation cost of $14,500 for a simple payback of 3.6 years. Waste compactor image courtesy Wiki Commons. Based on Author Readability Review Engineering Review Math Review Unmodified Template Insert Name Insert Name Insert Name Insert Name AR No. # - Analysis Waste Cost Analysis Equations Current Waste Cost Eq. 1) Current Waste Cost (CC) Number of Waste Pickups (NC) 5 loads/mo. (N. 1) 12 months NC CPS (1 CFS ) Waste Pickup Surcharge (CPS) $89 /load (N. 1) 1 year Fuel Surcharge (CFS) 9.8% (N. 1) Eq. 2) Proposed Pickups (NP) Current Waste Cost (CC) $5,863 /yr. (Eq. 1) NC (1 VR ) Proposed Waste Cost Eq. 3) Proposed Waste Cost (CP) Volume Reduction (VR) 80% (N. 1) 12 months N P CPS (1 CFS ) Proposed Pickups (NP) 1.0 loads/mo. (Eq. 2) 1 year Proposed Waste Cost (Cp) $1,173 /yr. (Eq. 3) Eq. 4) Power Draw (P) 0.7457 kW PR Compactor Energy Analysis 1 hp Motor Data Eq. 5) Energy Usage (E) Compactor Horsepower (PR) 15 hp (Rf. 1) OH P Motor Efficiency (η) 92% (Rf. 1) Eq. 6) Energy Cost (CE) Power Draw (P) 10.3 kW (Eq. 4) ICE E Compactor Energy Cost Eq. 7) Demand Cost (CD) Operation Hours (tOH) 95 hrs./yr. (N. 2) 12 months ICD P Energy Usage (E) 978 kWh/yr. (Eq. 5) 1 year Incremental Electricity Cost (ICE) $0.07299 /kWh (Rf. 2) Eq. 8) Cost Savings (CS) Energy Cost (CE) $71 /yr. (Eq. 6) (CC CP ) (CE CD ) Compactor Demand Cost Eq. 9) Implementation Costs (IC) Incremental Demand Cost (ICD) $4.80 /kW∙mo. (Rf. 2) CM CL Demand Cost (CD) $593 /yr. (Eq. 7) References Implementation Cost Rf. 1) Data from compactor nameplate Compactor Cost (CM) $11,000 (Rf. 3) information. Installation Cost (CL) $3,500 (Rf. 3) Rf. 2) Developed in the Utility Analysis of the Site Data section. Economic Results Rf. 3) Data supplied by RSMeans Building Cost Savings (CS) $4,027 /yr. (Eq. 8) Construction 2012 for heavy duty industrial (CI) compactor, 1 cubic yard capacity. Implementation Costs $14,500 (Eq. 9) Payback (tPB) 3.6 yrs. Notes N. 1) Based on facility waste records and conversations with facility personnel. N. 2) From compressor cycle time, given number of compressions/month.
Pages to are hidden for
"waste_compactor.recommendation"Please download to view full document