Pump categories in final scope of this review study .1 Extended Product Approach .1 Extended Product Approach

The estimated potential for energy savings from this chapter onwards is only presented at EPA level. However, energy consumption is also shown in order to place pump categories in perspective in terms of the energetic demand in the whole European Union. It is important to note that at this point of the study both the energy consumption and the potential energy savings are only estimates used to refine the product into the final scope.

The final calculations for energy consumption and energy saving potentials are shown in chapter 12.

9.2.2 Clean water pumps

The clean water pumps included in the final scope are:

• End suction own bearing (ESOB) pumps with a maximum shaft power of 150 kW

• End suction closed coupled (ESCC) pumps with a maximum shaft power of 150 kW

• End suction closed coupled in line (ESCCi) pumps with a maximum shaft power of 150 kW

• Submersible borehole multistage clean water pumps (MSSB) with a nominal outer diameter of up to 6” (15.24 cm)

• Vertical Multistage (MS-V) clean water pumps which are designed for pressures up to 40 bar

• Horizontal Multistage (MS-H) clean water pumps which are designed for pressures up to 40 bar

• Booster-sets for clean water with a maximum shaft power of 150 kW

The pump categories ESOB, ESCC, ESCCi, MSS (up to 6”) and MS-V (up to 25 bar and 100m3/h) are already covered by the existing regulation.

Larger horizontal multistage water pumps (which are designed for pressures between 25 and 40 bar) are included since they present important energy savings according to estimates in potential energy savings (1.5–2.1 TWh/year). The study team are aware of the difficulties brought up by Europump²⁶⁸ on regulating these pumps since they are engineered and would have difficulties on attaining a harmonized requirement.

Furthermore, Europump has also mentioned they would present problems for Market Surveillance due to their size which may make testing difficult. However, this was discussed by some Member States who said that other large products can be verified, such as in the Transformers Regulation 548/2012. Finally, they stated that users are already aware of efficiency and of the advantage of using VSDs. However, data provided by Europump confirms that about 29% of the pumps used in variable flow applications use VSD, bringing an important opportunity considering the reduction of average electricity consumption from about 29 kW without VSD to 18 kW with VSD. Furthermore, the calculated potential shows that not as many users are aware of efficiency and the use of VSDs, as Europump stated²⁶⁹²⁶⁸. Larger vertical multistage water pumps (designed for pressures between 25 and 40 bar) are also included since this will increase the energy savings and because, as suspected by the study team, that to neglect regulating larger vertical multistage water

268 ’Proposed scope for regulation of multistage pumps’ position paper. Issued by Europump on the 8^th of April, 2016.

269 Ibid.

165

pumps could lead to the same loophole stated by Europump for smaller horizontal multistage pumps of up to 25 bars²⁷⁰.

Booster-sets are also included, since according to industry²⁷¹, this will bring into scope the mass produced horizontal pumps with a smaller flow and head range which are used in booster sets.

Larger borehole submersible multistage water pumps (with a nominal outer diameter from 6” to 12”) have been excluded after receiving new data from Europump on the use of VSDs, which shows that little savings can be achieved since many of the pumps used in variable flow applications already use VSDs (0.3 TWh/year as shown in Table 33).

Furthermore, most of the savings in the highest range (0.9 TWh/year) come from switching to improved motor technologies, which is a decision not directly dependent on the review of the Pump regulation 547/2012.

In spite of the large electrical power consumption per unit, the estimated stock of large ESOB pumps (rated power >150 kW) is limited (about 9000 units). The estimated energy saving potentials is about 0.3 TWh/year and this is based on the assumption that 10% of these pumps are used in the variable flow applications and therefore could save electricity by applying VSD. The assumption of 10% pumps operating in variable flow application might differ slightly from the reality, but even if it is 20% the potential energy savings would not be higher than 0.7 TWh/year. Assuming a higher share of variable flow applications is unrealistic since they are often selected for a specific duty with no opportunities to vary the flow/head²⁷²¹⁵¹, according to investigations conducted by the study team and information provided by stakeholders. It is therefore concluded that this energy saving potential would not pay off the additional costs these pumps would imply on market surveillance and verification procedures. The study team has therefore decided to exclude these pumps from the next tasks of the review study.

According to information from stakeholders and from desktop research, self-priming pumps present a diverse range of pump types with different capabilities which need to be identified before even starting with the data collection. These have not been discussed in previous chapters due to the lack of information on the relevance to the specific pump categories assessed in this review study. This is because self-priming pumps cover a wide range of applications and there is no single definition for them, which makes their characterisation impossible without having a proper harmonized definition first.

Furthermore, the type of fluids they pump is not only water but also air and it is not sure how many of the existing self-priming pumps are used for clean water applications. Since there is no available information on the number of self-priming pumps in use or sold, and no reliable information about their average size or operation time, it is not possible to estimate the overall energy consumption nor energy saving potentials. It has been discussed whether the exclusion of self-priming pumps presents a potential loophole.

Inputs from stakeholders indicate that it is very unlikely that anyone would buy a self-priming pump if the self-self-priming function is not needed, therefore the exclusion can only present a loophole if the definition for self-priming pumps is unclear. A definition is presented in section 9.3.

270 ’Proposed scope for regulation of multistage pumps’ position paper. Issued by Europump on the 8^th of April, 2016.

271 Ibid.

272 “Unsuitability of some pump types for regulation and problems to be solved for others”. Europump position paper, final issue 1. February 16th, 2016.

166

Borehole MSS (>12”) for clean water presents very little savings potential and have therefore been excluded.

9.2.3 Swimming pool pumps

Only small swimming pool pumps (up to 2.2 kW rated power) have been included in the final scope.

In spite of the small potential savings at EPA level (0-0.21 TWh/year), small swimming pool pumps present important ambiguities on the parameters that greatly influence the calculation of savings potentials:

• It is considered that all pumps operate under constant flow and that only a small part of the European market uses variable speed drives (2.9%). There are no doubts about this figure and its representation of the market, however, there is an indication that variable speed drive can be beneficial for the energy consumption of swimming pool pumps (e.g. in the USA and Australia, where the share of variable speed applications can go up to 92%, and in the UK where a pump using VSD can be reduced to half of the annual energy consumption of a 1HP pump). This would bring the energy savings from 0.21 TWh/year to 3.4 TWh/year, considering only the manufacturer’s information. The savings would come from switching to variable flow and therefore opening the possibility of using VSDs and achieving a potential saving. Despite this is based only on one manufacturer’s information, it points out at the unexploited potential of switching to variable flow which is also discussed by the ENERGY STAR program in Australia and the energy efficiency standard in the USA as discussed in previous chapters.

• Despite that the study team is aware of the differences on use of disinfectants between the USA and Australia, there does not seem to be specific requirements which show the chlorine (or other disinfectant) levels that must be kept under a certain limit. What is stated as chlorine levels by stakeholders²⁷³¹⁴⁸ are not required limits but are recommended levels in swimming pool standards both in the USA and in the EU. Furthermore, this comparison does not show clearly whether the levels are very different or more or less equal.

• The differences on maximum turnover rate between the USA and the EU have been made clear but it is not clear whether a different system design can maintain this and at the same time reduce the energy consumption by the pump.

• The example in the UK shows different speed modes for different operation cycles, arguing that the filtration system does not need to run full speed all the time, e.g.

during the night time. This puts in doubt the fact of whether the maximum turnover rate must be fixed for the different times of the day.

• According to data provided by industry, the fact that no small swimming pool pumps are operated in variable flow applications reduces the savings potential at EPA level nearly to zero. If, for example, the amount of variable flow applications would increase to 50%, the potential savings would be at least 1.1 TWh/year. The fact that the use of variable speed is not currently promoted in the EU domestic swimming pool market, slows down the possibility to increase the amount of variable flow applications. In a circulation/filtration system, this is an evident possibility which should be explored.

273 EUSA Pool Pump Working Group Position paper #2, dated on the 21st of March, 2016

167

Larger swimming pool pumps (rated power > 2.2 kW) have been excluded, since they present very small saving potentials. Furthermore, it is assumed that these pumps are used in commercial settings, where the possibility to increase the use of VSDs thus turning them into more variable flow applications are limited.

9.2.4 Wastewater pumps

The wastewater pumps included in the final scope are:

• Submersible vortex radial (SVR) pumps for wastewater ≤ 160 kW

• Submersible channel radial (SCR) pumps for wastewater ≤ 160 kW

In spite of the very little potential savings, max. 0.34 TWh/year for vortex radial pumps and max. 0.9 TWh/year for channel radial pumps, these pumps have been included in the final scope. This is because by the time of the decision on the final scope, these pumps presented many ambiguities in terms of categorisation.

Although vortex pumps appear to have have different uses than channel pumps²⁷⁴, one of the wastewater pump manufacturers is not using vortex pumps any longer and appears to have substituted them by improved channel pumps. However, further input from industry²⁷⁵ clarified that a significant number of wastewater pumping applications still require vortex pumps for a reliable operation. This input was received after the final scope was identified, so it was left as it is.

Axial flow pumps have been excluded from the review study since they have been clearly identified for applications that differ from channel radial and vortex radial pumps (i.e. for high flows and low heads, contrary to all the vortex and most of the channel pumps).

Furthermore, the stock of these pumps is rather small (2000-3000 units) and their potential savings are max. 0.02-0.10 TWh/year, since they already show a high use of VSDs (100% of all the variable flow applications, which is 24% of all the applications in the EU market).

The estimated potential energy savings for all the dry well wastewater pumps is max.

0.4 TWh/year, and considering the complexity in defining and categorising wastewater pumps and the effort required for market surveillance, the study team concludes to exclude all dry well wastewater pumps from the next tasks of the review study.

9.2.5 Solids handling pumps

None of these pumps have been included in the final scope of this review study.

In spite of the significant total electricity consumption at EU level (5.8 TWh/year) of submersible dewatering pumps and the comparable savings potential of some submersible wastewater pumps (0 – 0.4 TWh/year), the potential to increase the amount of pumps dedicated to variable applications to much higher levels and thus increasing savings potential is not realistically possible. The nature of their mobile applications makes it difficult to couple them with VSDs and high efficient motors, according to information from stakeholders and in Lot 28. Furthermore, the type of fluid they pump is quite diverse, not only composed of sand and grit water (specified in Lot 28), but varying from pool water to wastewater and solids, according to information from Europump. This diversity demands a further categorization based on the type of fluid they pump, and this task is not possible

274 Dialogue with manufacturers at IFAT 2016

275 Europump response published the 31^st May 2018 to document elaborated by study team: “EXTRACT NO.2 FROM DRAFT FINAL REPORT ON WASTEWATER PUMPS”, sent to Europump on the 15^th May 2018.

168

at this point in time since the wide range of applications also presents a wide range of water and wastewater mixtures that cannot be categorized at this stage in time. The study team therefore sees no reason to keep assessing this pump category and it is therefore excluded from the next tasks of the review study.

The estimated potential energy savings for slurry pumps (light and heavy duty) are less than 0.5 TWh/year. Slurry pumps are exposed to extreme wear, which influence the energy efficiency. The energy efficiency of a new pump is less relevant than the energy efficiency after the pump has been exposed to wear for some time. Therefore, normal testing procedures, where new pumps are tested, would not give a correct indication of which pumps are most energy efficient during their lifetime. Considering the complexity of testing slurry pumps and the effort required for market surveillance, the study team concludes to exclude slurry pumps from the next tasks of the review study.