Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
CASE STUDY /PIGGYBACK MOTORS <br /> { From 120,8718 I<WH's to 130,594, app 50% Reduction) !! <br /> 4- <br /> Electric Motor Pump <br /> COST ANALYSIS <br /> COST COMPARISONS <br /> (Iq)l Annual (Watts/hp) Efficiency Load (bhp) =ahr,•111'0-4 ,; kO—atl hot— = Kw' nrs Cost Annual Cost <br /> Horsep�w'r hlrs IOn Kvv Factor WH =kwh ' costlkwh <br /> ;(M)(Mrd 0()eration 20.00 8, 1(3 0.0,,0 0. /d 6, 0.80 13.80 120,878 $0.08 $,9,( 70.?3 <br /> Standard Motor 20.00 2,000.00 i?. I I� -;1't.E,0`/o 0.80 13.80 27,598 $0.08 $2,207.32 <br /> Piggy Back Motor 1.50 6.7(30.00 rJ, ;=Ji; S:i 1. 10`14) 0.30 4.88 32,996 $0.08 $2,6:39.72 <br /> Difference $4,822. 10 <br /> PAYBACK COMPARISONS <br /> InclIrred Payhd-(k Inlen l Rate <br /> Cost NAS years of Return <br /> mplementation Cost for <br /> Piggyback Operation $3,500.00 $4,822.70 0. 13 138', <br /> Jote: <br /> New HP = Design HP '((New Flow !Design Flow)cubed) <br /> = 20"(0.710.1'0.7) <br /> = 6.86 <br /> Jote: A 30 Reduction in Flow Results in a 67 Reduction in Horsepower rEnerc)y. <br /> Energy Investments that Beat the DOw <br />