energy comparison of wine stabilization methods

Design & Engineering Services

Energy Comparison of Wine Stabilization Methods ET 06.13 Report

Prepared by:

Design & Engineering Services Customer Service Business Unit Southern California Edison January 15, 2008

Energy Comparison of Wine Stabilization Methods ET 06.13

Southern California Edison Page i Design & Engineering Services January 2008

Acknowledgements

Southern California Edison’s Design & Engineering Services (DES) group is responsible for this project. It was developed as part of Southern California Edison’s Emerging Technology program under internal project number ET 06.13. Douglas Stevens of Concepts in Controls provided project monitoring and data gathering efforts on behalf of SCE. DES project manager Dr. Roger Sung Conducted this technology evaluation with over guidance and management from Dr. Henry Lau. For more information on this project, contact [email protected].

Disclaimer

This report was prepared using information gathered by Concepts in Controls located in Visalia, California and funded by California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Reproduction or distribution of the whole or any part of the contents of this document without the express written permission of SCE is prohibited. This work was performed with reasonable care and in accordance with professional standards. However, neither SCE nor any entity performing the work pursuant to SCE’s authority make any warranty or representation, expressed, or implied, with regard to this report, the merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose of the results of the work, or any analyses, or conclusions contained in this report. The results reflected in the work are generally representative of operating conditions; however, the results in any other situation may vary depending upon particular operating conditions.

mailto:[email protected]


Southern California Edison Page ii Design & Engineering Services January 2008

FIGURES Figure 1. Winery Storage Tanks ....................................................6 Figure 2. Tower Fans, Glycol Pumps, Tower Recirculation Pump and

Refrigerator Compressor ..............................................6 Figure 3. Flash Cooler ..................................................................7 Figure 4. Filter Used in Flash Refrigeration Process...........................8 Figure 5. STARS Electrodialysis Unit...............................................9 Figure 6. Panel Showing the kW/kWh Meters.................................10 Figure 7. Real-Time Data HMI Overview Screen.............................11 Figure 8. Trending HMI Screen....................................................11 Figure 9. Energy Usage Comparison for Processing 13,334 Gallons

by Three Technologies ...............................................14 Figure 10. Bulk Refrigeration Energy Usage for Processing 13,334

Gallons ....................................................................15 Figure 11. Flash Refrigeration Energy Usage for Processing 13,334

Gallons ....................................................................16 Figure 12. Electrodialysis Energy Usage for Processing 13,334

Gallons ....................................................................16

TABLES Table 1. Comparison of Energy Use for Stabilizing 13,334 gallons of

Wine .........................................................................1 Table 2. Bulk Refrigeration Technology – Demand (kW) and Use

(kWh) for 13,334 Gallons ...........................................12 Table 3. Flash Refrigeration Technology - Demand (kW)and Use

(kWh) for 13,334 Gallons ...........................................12 Table 4. Electrodialysis Technology - Demands and Usage for

13,334 Gallons..........................................................12 Table 5. Annual Energy Calculations for Bulk Refrigeration ..............18 Table 6. Annual Energy Calculations for Flash Refrigeration .............18 Table 7. Annual Energy Calculations for Electrodialysis ...................19


Southern California Edison Page iii Design & Engineering Services January 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _______________________________________________ 1

Cost of Leasing electrodialysis equipment .............................2

INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 3

TECHNICAL APPROACH _____________________________________________ 4

WINE STABILIZATION PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS _____________________________ 5 Bulk Refrigeration ..................................................................5 Flash Refrigeration .................................................................7 Electrodialysis........................................................................8

STARS Mobile Unit.............................................................8

FIELD DATA COLLECTION ___________________________________________ 10 Energy Demand and Usage....................................................12

Sample Calculations ........................................................13 Minimum, Maximum and Average for kW .......................13 kWh usage ................................................................13

DISCUSSION _____________________________________________________ 14

ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATIONS ____________________________________ 18 Electrodialysis System Cost Savings Analysis ...........................19

Simple Payback for Electrodialysis (based on capital investment)...............................................................19

Leasing Electrodialysis Equipment......................................19 Simple payback for electrodialysis (based on capital

investment)..........................................................20 Costs of Leasing electrodialysis equipment..............20

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS _______________________________ 21 Appendix A – Raw Data Sample .............................................22 Appendix B – California State University, Fresno Wine Flavor and Taste Testing Results.....................................................23


Southern California Edison Page iv Design & Engineering Services January 2008

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS C Celsius

CWO Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation

ED Electrodialysis

Gal Gallon

HMI Human Machine Interface

Hour Hr

KHT Potassium Bitartrate

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt Hour

O&M Operation and Maintenance

SCE Southern California Edison

STARS Selective Tartrate Removal System

YR Year


Southern California Edison Page 1 Design & Engineering Services January 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To eliminate tartrates that appear as salt crystals in wine on the bottom of each bottle winemakers around the world must use a stabilization process. Most vintners use some type of cold stabilization process that requires the wine to be chilled to near freezing to reveal the rock candy-like crystals. Cold stabilization can take several days and cost thousands of dollars in electricity. Bulk refrigeration is a common wine stabilization process. Another popular stabilization method is flash refrigeration.

This project seeks to determine the energy savings from the bulk refrigeration and flash refrigeration processes and analyzes the energy saving potential of using a new wine stabilization process known as electrodialysis.

Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation (CWO), located in California’s Central Valley, consists of 2,230 acres of agricultural land with a modern winery. At Cacciatore Fine Wines, bulk refrigeration and flash refrigeration are used for wine stabilization.

This study was commissioned by Southern California Edison (SCE) to evaluate and compare the energy consumption of bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration and a newer wine stabilization process known as electrodialysis. This project specifically seeks to determine whether electrodialysis reduces the energy required for wine stabilization.

A data acquisition system was installed on all stabilization equipment at CWO to measure energy consumption from bulk, flash refrigeration, and electrodialysis processes. Energy consumption was monitored for 14 days from November 6, 2007 until November 20, 2007 during the processing of 13,334 gallons of wine. The wine was split into three equal portions to be used for stabilization by bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration, and electrodialysis. Data collected was analyzed and used to compare energy usage for each technology and to determine energy savings.

TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF ENERGY USE FOR STABILIZING 13,334 GALLONS OF WINE

METHOD

TOTAL ENERGY USAGE

KILOWATT HOUR(KWH)

Bulk refrigeration 10,067

Flash refrigeration 600.9

Electrodialysis 95.1

The results of this study reveal that an annual energy savings of 59,117 kWh can be achieved using electrodialysis over bulk refrigeration. This reflects an approximate annual savings of $8,808.

Similarly, an annual energy savings of 2,276.1 kWh can be achieved using electrodialysis over flash refrigeration. This reflects an approximate annual savings of $742.

Winesecrets, an electrodialysis technology supplier for wine producers, and Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation state the following:

An installed cost of an 800-gallon (gal)/hour (hr) electrodialysis (ED) unit is $250,000.

To lease the same unit of wine is $300/hr for a new customer or a repeat customer pays $0.25 per gallon.



CWO processes 60,000 gal/year (yr).

(60,000 gal/yr) / (13,334 gal) = 4.5

The simple payback for electrodialysis (based on capital investment) is

$250,000/ {59,117kWh/yr x $0.149/kWh} in 28.4 yrs.

The high cost does NOT make purchasing the electrodialysis equipment a viable energy reduction option.

COST OF LEASING ELECTRODIALYSIS EQUIPMENT The cost of leasing electrodialysis equipment is:

Leasing equipment = $0.25/gal (including labor and material)

Processing 60,000 gallons of wine equals an annual cost of $15,000/yr.

An annual energy savings of 59,117 kWh/yr x $0.149/kWh = $8,808/yr.

Since the energy savings is less than the equipment leasing cost, leasing is also not an attractive option.

Despite the above energy savings analysis, electrodialysis is considered a good substitute for bulk refrigeration in wine stabilization because it can significantly reduce the amount of wine loss from the traditional bulk refrigeration process. Instead of the conventional 3.2% to 3.5% wine loss in cold stabilization, electrodialysis can reduce wine loss by as much as 2%, depending on the type of wine processed. This is a significant savings for the wine industry. Considering a typical bottle of average quality wine retails for about $6.00/bottle or $30/gallon, CWO’s annual production of 60,000 gallons will retail for $1,800,000. Assuming a reduction of 2% in wine loss, this translates to a savings of $36,000 per year.

The simple payback for electrodialysis (based on capital investment) is $250,000/($8,808 +$36,0000) in 5.57 yrs.

Other benefits of electrodialysis technology include significant time saved in wine stabilization, no storage and refrigeration required after stabilization, and possible quality improvements.

Since energy savings is only one component of the total cost, one should not select a given technology solely on energy cost savings. There are other factors such as capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and product wine quality and stability issues that also need to be considered before selecting a specific technology. It should be noted that this technology is mature and can be readily used for all wineries.



INTRODUCTION Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation's (CWO) operations in California’s Central Valley include 2,230 acres of agricultural land with a modern winery. The facility uses two different methods for wine stabilization: bulk refrigeration and flash refrigeration. In the United States, cold stabilization is employed to remove tartrate crystals. These crystals typically form in wine during storage and are viewed as unpleasant in taste or mistaken for shards of glass in the bottom of a wine glass. Removal of these crystals to stabilize the wine greatly improves marketability and consumer satisfaction.

Current stabilization methods are expensive, with high-energy costs, and require considerable processing time. This is especially true of bulk refrigeration systems that tend to be over-sized for their intended use.

A new technology known as electrodialysis can remove the tartrate crystals in wine more efficiently and less costly. A Napa, California-based company called Winesecrets has developed a standalone unit, Selective Tartrate Removal System (STARS) that uses electrodialysis technology to remove tartaric crystals for wineries in the United States.

Southern California Edison (SCE) contacted Claudio Basei, winemaker and general manager of Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation to gauge interest in participating in a project to evaluate energy usage from three wine stabilization technologies. The project was designed to monitor energy usage of each of these technologies and provide helpful insights to wineries in the selection of the most energy efficient and least time consuming stabilization technology.



TECHNICAL APPROACH This project compares the energy consumption of three different wine stabilization technologies: bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration, and electrodialysis. Energy usage was assessed by comparing the amount of energy consumed in processing an equal volume sample through each of the three stabilization technologies.

The technical approach involved the following steps:

1. Visiting the host facility and determining the most efficient and effective way to capture the winery’s daily energy data.

2. Ensuring highly accurate monitoring. To do this a 485 multi-drop network was implemented. The multi-drop network has the ability to synchronize multiple meters and allow for single database acquisition. Additionally, polling rates of every 6 minutes (1/10 of an hour) were used to obtain consistent and reliable data points for energy calculations.



WINE STABILIZATION PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS For this study, Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation provided us with 20,000 gallons of Syrah and 20,000 gallons of Cabernet Sauvignon. Each wine was divided into three different groups of approximately 6,667 gallons. Each group used a different technology for stabilization: bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration, or electrodialysis.

In addition to energy use monitoring, the stabilized product from each group was also subjected to quality and taste evaluations by a panel from California State University, Fresno. The university panel completed its assessment but did not prepare a report.

BULK REFRIGERATION The bulk refrigeration process for wine stabilization has the following energy consuming components:

One Tower Fan

One Tower Spray Recirculation Pump

Two Refrigeration Compressors

Two Glycol Cooling Pumps

One Storage Tank Mixing Unit

One Filter

During the conventional bulk refrigeration process, a wine is chilled to a temperature just above its freezing point (normally at –4 Celsius (C)) and is held at that temperature for 2 to 3 weeks. Chilling the wine lowers the solubility of the white crystalline deposits, technically known as potassium bitartrate (KHT), and facilitates its crystallization and precipitation. During cold storage, the rate of KHT precipitation is rapid in the initial stage and it slows down with time. This is attributed to the reduction in the KHT saturation level. The precise temperature and storage time necessary to stabilize a wine depends on the kind of wine processed. The white crystals or precipitated KHT are then removed from the chilled wine through a filter before bottling.

Bulk refrigeration, via cold stabilization, is the most commonly used process in the United States. However, there are problems associated with this chill/hold technology, such as the high capital cost of refrigerated tanks, large storage area required, high-energy costs, large amounts of hazardous caustic chemicals required to remove tartrate deposits from storage tanks, and the long holding time before delivery. Figure 1 shows wine storage tanks. Figure 2 shows the components of a refrigerated wine storage facility.


FIGURE 1. WINERY STORAGE TANKS

FIGURE 2. TOWER FANS, GLYCOL PUMPS, TOWER RECIRCULATION PUMP AND REFRIGERATOR COMPRESSOR



FLASH REFRIGERATION The flash refrigeration method is made up of the following energy consuming components, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4:

Flash refrigeration unit

Filter

The wine to be stabilized is typically at cellar temperature or lower. This wine storage tank is connected to the inlet of the flash refrigeration unit where it cools the wine to achieve an outlet temperature of -3C. The outlet of the unit is then connected to the filter, where the tartrate crystals are removed from the cooled wine. If the desired outlet temperature is not achieved, the flow rate must be reduced in order for the wine to stay longer in the cooling chamber.

Flash refrigeration is a wine stabilization process that was once very popular in Europe. Energy consumption for this technology, when compared to bulk refrigeration, is significantly less and production time is faster. However, its introduction, and reception in the United States has not been not very successful. The main reasons are loss of color and the inability to retain flavor. Consequently, the technology never became popular or widely adopted in the United States.

FIGURE 3. FLASH COOLER



FIGURE 4. FILTER USED IN FLASH REFRIGERATION PROCESS

ELECTRODIALYSIS The electrodialysis components for a trailer-mounted unit (Figure 5) are assembled as the selective tartrate removal system (STARS) mobile unit.

STARS MOBILE UNIT The STARS is an electrodialysis process in which an electrically driven membrane system separates or "cleans" the wine of unwanted tartrates or salt-like crystals. This electrodialysis-based process is widely used for desalination of seawater, demineralization of whey, and many other applications. Recent advances in membrane development have enabled application of this technology to tartrate removal and wine stabilization.

According to the selective tartrate removal system developer Winesecrets, Inc. STARS works by moving micro-layers of wine between two membranes that are selectively permeable - anions to anodes such as tartrate ions, and cations to cathodes, such as potassium and calcium ions.

A water-based conductant flows past the other side of each membrane. A weak electric field is introduced to attract the tartrate salts and move them through the membranes. As the salts cross the membranes, they are carried off by a conductant solution, which is subsequently discarded. The wines are ready for bottling immediately after stabilization. The process is controlled by the change in conductivity caused by the removal of the tartrate salts. Unlike bulk and flash refrigeration processes, no refrigeration is required after electrodialysis processing.



FIGURE 5. STARS ELECTRODIALYSIS UNIT



FIELD DATA COLLECTION The energy acquisition equipment was installed a month before the field test to allow for steady state operation before testing. Field data acquisition was initiated on November 6, 2007 and continued through November 20, 2007. During this period energy demand (kW) and energy usage (kWh) data was collected and logged on separate channels for all three technologies. Meters were installed on the technology equipment control centers, as shown in Figure 6. Each meter was connected to the 485 network, which was then connected to a computer monitoring system.

FIGURE 6. PANEL SHOWING THE KW/KWH METERS

Custom human machine interface (HMI) screens were developed to provide quick and easy real-time numbers that can be readily logged into a database. Figure 7 and Figure 8 display sample screens developed for the project.

Figure 7, the overview screen, shows the real time kW and kWh data. Figure 8 shows the trending screen that was used to track on-going energy demand.

Both screens allowed the winery to monitor real-time data and verify the individual component power usage.



FIGURE 7. REAL-TIME DATA HMI OVERVIEW SCREEN

FIGURE 8. TRENDING HMI SCREEN




ENERGY DEMAND AND USAGE Data, compiled on kW demand and kWh use for bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration and electrodialysis technologies are presented in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4.

TABLE 2. BULK REFRIGERATION TECHNOLOGY – DEMAND (KW) AND USE (KWH) FOR 13,334 GALLONS

COMPONENT AVERAGE

KW MAXIMUM

KW MINIMUM

KW KWH

Tower Fan 7.9 14.4 0.3 37.3

Tower Spray Recirculation Pump 4.4 4.5 4.3 1525.5

Refrigeration Compressor 49.4 75.6 0.1 3513.3

Glycol Cooling Pumps 13.5 13.8 13.3 4680.0

Filter 0.3 14.0 13.3 310.5

Total 10,067

*Note that the zero numbers were removed to compute the average and minimum numbers.

As shown in Table 2, bulk refrigeration was the highest energy use technology for this study, which ran continuously for 14 days from November 6, 2007 to November 20, 2007 until 13,334 gallons of wine were processed.

TABLE 3. FLASH REFRIGERATION TECHNOLOGY - DEMAND (KW)AND USE (KWH) FOR 13,334 GALLONS

COMPONENT AVERAGE

KW MAXIMUM

KW MINIMUM

KW KWH

Flash Cooler 24.5 27.8 24.0 239.9

Filter 0.3 14.5 12.7 361.0

Total 600.9


Flash refrigeration ran for 27 hours and 16 minutes to process the same amount of wine. This presented a huge benefit over bulk refrigeration, but required the use of a filter after refrigeration to physically remove the tartrates before bottling.

TABLE 4. ELECTRODIALYSIS TECHNOLOGY - DEMANDS AND USAGE FOR 13,334 GALLONS

COMPONENT AVERAGE

KW MAXIMUM

KW MINIMUM

KW KWH

STARS 5.8 7.9 5.6 95.1

Total 95.1


Electrodialysis was able to process the same amount of wine in only 16 hours and 47 minutes, and it did not require additional refrigeration or filtration.



SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND AVERAGE FOR KW

The minimum, maximum, and average kWh values for bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration, and electrodialysis were calculated using the functionality within the Microsoft® Excel® spreadsheet program. Due to the way the minimum and average kWh values were calculated, the zero values were removed from the spreadsheet before the calculations were completed, as they represented the unit that was not in service at that time.

KWH USAGE

The starting and ending values from the meter are required to calculate kWh usage since the meter counts in an upward direction.

ELECTRODIALYSIS A1 SAMPLE

Starting kWh 271.1 Ending kWh 318.9

318.9 kWh – 271.1 kWh = 47.8 kWh

ELECTRODIALYSIS B1 SAMPLE

Starting kWh 321.4 Ending kWh 368.7

368.7 kWh – 321.4 kWh = 47.3 kWh

Since two different types of wine were used for this technology, the total kWh consumed by the electrodialysis unit is the sum of the two kWh readings from the two wines processed:

47.8 kWh + 47.3 kWh = 95.1 kWh


DISCUSSION Results of the individually tested components and a comparison of the energy usage for each wine stabilization technology can be seen in Figure 9 through Figure 12. It is apparent that using electrodialysis will result in significant energy savings over bulk refrigeration or flash refrigeration. Figure 9 compares the kWh consumption of electrodialysis, flash refrigeration, and bulk refrigeration wine stabilization processes. Figure 10, Error! Reference source not found., and Figure 12 further illustrate the energy consuming components within each of the three processes involved.

Flash Refrigeration

Electrodialysis

Bulk Refrigeration

12000 1000080006000400020000

95.1 kWh

600.9 kWh

10,067 kWh

FIGURE 9. ENERGY USAGE COMPARISON FOR PROCESSING 13,334 GALLONS BY THREE TECHNOLOGIES



37.7 kWh

1525.5 kWh

3513.3 kWh

4680 kWh

310.5 kWh

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Tower Fan

Tower Recirculation Pump

Compressor 1

Glycol Pump 2

Filter

FIGURE 10. BULK REFRIGERATION ENERGY USAGE FOR PROCESSING 13,334 GALLONS



239.9 kWh

361 kWh

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Flash Cooler

Filter

FIGURE 11. FLASH REFRIGERATION ENERGY USAGE FOR PROCESSING 13,334 GALLONS

95.1 kWh

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Electrodialysis

FIGURE 12. ELECTRODIALYSIS ENERGY USAGE FOR PROCESSING 13,334 GALLONS




Electrodialysis is much less energy intensive than both bulk refrigeration and flash refrigeration. Electrodialysis is a one-pass process that does not require post refrigeration and filtration. As a result, less energy and manpower are required.

In addition to energy savings, this project determined that electrodialysis offers definitive benefits over bulk refrigeration and flash refrigeration. Reduction in wine loss may be the single largest contributor to cost savings for the electrodialysis technology. Instead of the conventional 3.2% to 3.5% wine loss in cold stabilization, electrodialysis can reduce wine loss by as much as 2%, depending on the type of wine processed. This is a significant savings for the wine industry. Other benefits of electrodialysis technology include significant time saved in wine stabilization, no storage and refrigeration required after stabilization, and possible quality improvements. Time required to stabilize wine by electrodialysis is only 15% of the time required by bulk refrigeration. Energy savings is only one component of the total cost and capital costs, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, and product wine quality and stability issues should also be considered before selecting a technology.


ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATIONS Most of the wine produced at Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation according to the owner, is sold without stabilization in bulk quantities to wine retailers who stabilize and bottle the wine with their own labels. Only a small portion of CWO’s wine is bottled at the facility corresponding to approximately 60,000 gallons per year. By 2010, wine stabilization for bottling at the facility is projected to grow to 350,000 gallons annually.

For the purpose of this energy savings analysis, it is assumed that CWO produces only 60,000 gallons of wine each year for bottling, all of which require stabilization.

There were two wines – syrah and cabernet sauvignon - and three stabilization processes – bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration, and electrodialysis used in this analysis. Each wine was processed by a technology for 6,667-gallons. Therefore, the combined volume of wine for each technology was 13,334-gallons.

The actual amount of wine processed per year is equal to 60,000 Gallons

»4.513,334 Gallons

times what is

processed in this study. Equation 1 shows a sample bulk refrigeration calculation.

12.872,8$5.4*$149.0$*1.232,13 kWh

kWh

EQUATION 1. SAMPLE OF BULK REFRIGERATION CALCULATION

Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 show annual energy costs, broken down by component, for the bulk refrigeration, flash refrigeration and electrodialysis methods.

TABLE 5. ANNUAL ENERGY CALCULATIONS FOR BULK REFRIGERATION

COMPONENT KWH ENERGY

RATE COST

Tower Fan 15,809.85. $0.149 $2,355.67

Tower Spray Recirculation Pump 6,864.75 $0.149 $1,022.85

Refrigeration Compressor 15,809.85 $0.149 $2,355.67

Glycol Cooling Pumps 21,060.00 $0.149 $3,137.94

Total 59,544.45 $0.149 $8,872.12

TABLE 6. ANNUAL ENERGY CALCULATIONS FOR FLASH REFRIGERATION


RATE COST

Flash Cooler 1,079.55 $0.149 $160.85

Filter 1,624.50 $0.149 $242.05

Total 2,704.05 $0.149 $402.90




TABLE 7. ANNUAL ENERGY CALCULATIONS FOR ELECTRODIALYSIS


RATE COST

STARS 427.95 $0.149 $63.76

Total 427.95 $0.149 $63.76

ELECTRODIALYSIS SYSTEM COST SAVINGS ANALYSIS Study results reveal that the annual energy savings of 59,117 kWh can be achieved using electrodialysis over bulk refrigeration. This reflects an approximate annual savings of $8,808.

Similarly, annual energy savings of 2,276.1 kWh can be achieved using electrodialysis over flash refrigeration. This reflects an approximate annual savings of $742.

According to Winesecrets and Cacciatore Fine Wines & Olive Oil Corporation, the following is true:

Installation cost of an 800 gal/hr electrodialysis unit is equal to $250,000.

Leasing cost of an 800 gal/hr unit is $300/hr for new customers; repeating customers pay $0.25/gal.

Currently, CWO processes 60,000 gal/yr.

(60,000 gal/yr) / (13,334 gals) = 4.5 years

SIMPLE PAYBACK FOR ELECTRODIALYSIS (BASED ON CAPITAL INVESTMENT) The simple payback for electrodialysis is $250,000/{59,117 kWh/yr x $0.149/kWh} in 28.4 yrs.

This precludes purchasing the electrodialysis system for reducing energy cost as a viable option.

LEASING ELECTRODIALYSIS EQUIPMENT The costs associated with leasing electrodialysis equipment are as follows:

Leasing equipment is $0.25/gal (including labor and material).

The annual cost to process 60,000 gal of wine is $15,000/yr.

The annual energy savings is 59,117 kWh/yr x $0.149/kWh is $8,808/yr.

Since this amount of energy savings is less than the equipment leasing cost, this also makes leasing an unattractive energy savings option.

In spite of the above energy savings analysis, electrodialysis is still a good substitute for bulk refrigeration in wine stabilization because of the following benefits:

Electrodialysis can significantly reduce the amount of wine loss from the traditional bulk refrigeration process.

Instead of the conventional 3.2% to 3.5% wine loss in cold stabilization, electrodialysis can reduce wine loss by as much as 2%, depending on the



type of wine processed. This is a significant savings for the wine industry. Currently, an average medium quality wine bottle at CWO retails for about $6.00/bottle or $30/gallon. CWO’s annual production of 60,000 gallons will retail for $1,800,000. Assuming a reduction of 2% in wine loss, this translates to a savings of $36,000 per year. The corresponding payback on investment will be reduced to the following:

SIMPLE PAYBACK FOR ELECTRODIALYSIS (BASED ON CAPITAL INVESTMENT)

The simple payback for electrodialysis based on capital investment is:

$250,000/($8,808 +$36,000) = 5.58 yrs instead of 37.4 yrs.

Similarly, leasing the electrodialysis equipment will also provide reduction as shown below:

COSTS OF LEASING ELECTRODIALYSIS EQUIPMENT

The costs associated with leasing electrodialysis equipment are as follows:

Leasing equipment is $0.25/gal (including labor and material).

To process 60,000 gal, 59,117 kWh/yr x $0.149/kWh is $8,808/yr.

Annual wine savings from loss reductions is $36,000.

Simple return on leasing electrodialysis equipment is $15,000/($8,808 +$36,000) and equal to 0.33/yr or 4.0/mo.

If CWO bottles its entire production of 350,000 gallons per year on site instead of by bulk sales to wine retailers, (using electrodialysis for wine stabilization), the simple payback for electrodialysis will be significantly improved as shown below:

350,000 gal/60,000 gal = 5.83 years

Annual savings for processing 350,000 gal = 5.83 x $8,808 = $51,380

The simple payback for electrodialysis for processing 350,000 gallons per year (based on capital investment) is $250,000/($51,380 +$36,0000) in 2.86 yrs.



CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This energy monitoring project was successfully completed and the following energy savings were determined:

An annual energy savings of 59,117 kWh can be achieved using electrodialysis over bulk refrigeration.

An annual energy savings of 2,276 kWh can be achieved using electrodialysis over flash refrigeration.

Energy savings alone does not provide sufficient justification for replacing bulk refrigeration with an electrodialysis system for wine stabilization. Reduction in wine loss may be the single largest contributor to cost savings for the electrodialysis technology.

Other benefits of electrodialysis technology also include:

Significant time saved in wine stabilization.

No storage and refrigeration required after stabilization.

Possible quality improvements.

Time required to stabilize wine by electrodialysis is only 15% of the time required by bulk refrigeration.

Since energy savings is only one component of the total cost, one should not select a given technology solely on energy cost savings. There are other factors such as capital costs, O&M costs, and product wine quality and stability issues that also need to be considered before selecting a specific technology. It should be noted that this technology is mature and can be readily used for all wineries.



APPENDIX A – RAW DATA SAMPLE TABLE A- 1. RAW DATA SAMPLE

Modbus1.Kw Modbus1.Kwh

1 Modbus2.Kw Modbus2.Kwh1

Modbus3.Kw

Modbus3.Kwh1 Modbus4.Kw

Modbus4.Kwh1

Modbus5.Kw

Modbus5.Kwh1

Modbus6.Kw

Modbus6.Kwh1

Modbus7.Kw

Modbus7.Kwh1 Modbus8.

Kw

Pump 1 Pump 2 Glycol 1 Glycol 2 Tower Fan Tower Pump 100A Flash 480V

11/7/07 8:12 0 1019.9 0 5 0 0 13.8 307.8 0 25.3 4.4 1357.7 0 0 0.3

11/7/07 8:18 0 1019.9 0 5 0 0 13.7 309.2 0 25.3 4.4 1358.1 0 0 7.9

11/7/07 8:24 0 1019.9 0 5 0 0 13.7 310.5 0 25.3 4.4 1358.6 0 0 6.1

11/7/07 8:30 0 1019.9 0 5 0 0 13.7 311.9 0 25.3 4.4 1359 0 0 5.8

11/7/07 8:36 0 1019.9 0 5 0 0 13.7 313.3 0 25.3 4.4 1359.5 0 0 5.8

11/7/07 8:42 49.7 1022.9 0 5 5 0 13.6 314.6 0 25.3 4.4 1359.9 0 0 5.8

11/7/07 8:48 49.9 1028 0 5 5 0 13.7 316 0 25.3 4.4 1360.3 0 0 5.8

11/7/07 8:54 52.5 1033.9 0 5 5 0 13.6 317.3 8.6 25.5 4.4 1360.8 0 0 5.8

11/7/07 9:00 55.9 1039.2 0 5 5 0 13.7 318.7 0 25.6 4.4 1361.2 0 0 5.8

11/7/07 9:06 48.8 1044.9 0 5 5 0 13.6 320.1 0 25.8 4.4 1361.6 0 0 5.8

11/7/07 9:12 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 321.4 0 25.8 4.4 1362.1 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 9:18 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 322.8 0 25.8 4.4 1362.5 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 9:24 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 324.1 0 25.8 4.4 1362.9 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 9:30 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 325.5 0 25.8 4.4 1363.4 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 9:36 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 326.8 0 25.8 4.4 1363.8 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 9:42 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 328.1 0 25.8 4.4 1364.3 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 9:48 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 329.5 0 25.8 4.4 1364.7 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 9:54 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 330.8 0 25.8 4.4 1365.1 0 0 5.6

11/7/07 10:00 0 1046 0 5 5 0 13.5 332.2 0 25.8 4.4 1365.6 0 0 5.7



TABLE B- 1. 2007 CACCIATORE COLD STABILIZATION EXPERIMENT

APPENDIX B – CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO WINE FLAVOR AND TASTE TESTING RESULTS

Wine Stability Analysis

Wine Variety

Treatment

Sampling Stage (gal)

%=(I F)/I

Stability

Cabernet Sauvignon

Electrodialysis 1,716 2.741 Yes

Cabernet Sauvignon

Electrodialysis 3,432 3.366 No

Cabernet Sauvignon

Electrodialysis 5,148 1.785 Yes

Cabernet Sauvignon

Flash Refrigeration 1,716 1.412 Yes

Cabernet Sauvignon


Cabernet Sauvignon


Cabernet Sauvignon

Bulk Refrigeration 1,716 1.155 Yes


TABLE B- 2. MARCH 26, 2008 CACCIATORE STABILIZATION PROJECT -- TRIANGLE TESTING SUMMARY

ELECTRODIALYSIS

CABERNET SAUVIGNON

CORRECT/TOTAL ANSWERS

CONFIDENCE

SIGNIFICANCE

1,716-gal x 3,432-gal 10 /24 75% NS

1,716-gal x 5,148-gal 9 /24 59% NS

3,432-gal x 5,148-gal 6 /24 14% NS

BULK REFRIGERATION CABERNET SAUVIGNON CORRECT/TOTAL ANSWERS CONFIDENCE SIGNIFICANCE

1,716-gal x 5,148-gal 4 /22 4% NS

FLASH REFRIGERATION

CABERNET SAUVIGNON


CONFIDENCE

SIGNIFICANCE

1,716-gal x 5,148-gal 12 /22 96.7% S

MIXED TESTS

CABERNET SAUVIGNON


CONFIDENCE

SIGNIFICANCE

Electrodialysis-5,148 x Flash-5,148

8/22 54% NS

Electrodialysis-5,148 x Bulk-5,148

6/22 21% NS

Flash-5,148 x Bulk-5,148 10/21 87.5% NS

NS = Not significantly different at 95% confidence level S = Significantly different at 95% confidence level ND = Not done




TABLE B- 3. MARCH 26, 2008 CACCIATORE STABILIZATION PROJECT -- TRIANGLE TESTING SUMMARY

ELECTRODIALYSIS

CABERNET SAUVIGNON


CONFIDENCE

SIGNIFICANCE

1,716-gal x 3,432-gal 10 /24 75% NS

1,716-gal x 5,148-gal 9 /24 59% NS

3,432-gal x 5,148-gal 6 /24 14% NS

BULK REFRIGERATION

CABERNET SAUVIGNON


CONFIDENCE

SIGNIFICANCE

1,716-gal x 5,148-gal 4 /22 4% NS

FLASH REFRIGERATION

CABERNET SAUVIGNON


CONFIDENCE

SIGNIFICANCE

1,716-gal x 5,148-gal 12 /22 96.7% S

MIXED TESTS

CABERNET SAUVIGNON


CONFIDENCE

SIGNIFICANCE


8/22 54% NS


6/22 21% NS

Flash-5,148 x Bulk-5,148 10/21 87.5% NS


TABLE B- 4. 2007 CACCIATORE COLD STABILIZATION EXPERIMENT

WINE VARIETY

TREATMENT

SAMPLING STAGE

(GAL) %=(I-F)/I

STABILITY

Syrah Electrodialysis 1,716 1.133 Yes



Syrah Flash Refrigeration 1,716 3.762 No

Syrah Flash Refrigeration 3,432 0.503 Yes

Syrah Flash Refrigeration 5,148 1.794 Yes

Syrah Bulk Refrigeration 1,716 1.794 Yes


TABLE B- 5. TRIANGLE TESTING SUMMARY – SYRAH

ELECTRODIALYSIS SYRAH CORRECT/TOTAL ANSWERS CONFIDENCE SIGNIFICANCE

1,716-gal x 3,432-gal ND

1,716-gal x 5,148-gal 6/19 35% NS

3,432-gal x 5,148-gal ND

Syrah Flash Refrigeration 1,716 3.762



Syrah Bulk Refrigeration 1,716 1.794

BULK REFRIGERATION

SYRAH CORRECT/TOTAL ANSWERS CONFIDENCE SIGNIFICANCE

1,716 -gal x 5,148-gal 7/19 54% NS

FLASH REFRIGERATION SYRAH CORRECT/TOTAL ANSWERS CONFIDENCE SIGNIFICANCE

1,716 -gal x 5,148-gal 7/19 54% NS

MIXED TESTS SYRAH CORRECT/TOTAL ANSWERS CONFIDENCE SIGNIFICANCE


3/19 2% NS


6/19 35% NS


8/19 72% NS


6/19 35% NS

Flash-5,148 x Bulk-5,148 9/21 76% NS



energy comparison of wine stabilization methods

Documents