use of realtime water flowmeters in council · pdf fileuse of realtime water flowmeters in...

City of Belmont

USE OF REALTIME WATER FLOWMETERS IN COUNCIL FACILITIES

August 2014

A16

Use of Realtime Water Flowmeters in Council Facilities June 2014

City of Belmont P a g e | i

Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. Metering and Submetering .............................................................................................. 2

2.1. Why submeter? ........................................................................................................ 2

2.2. Water as a chargeable commodity ........................................................................... 3

2.3. Why use realtime water metering in comparison to conventional meters................. 4

3. Available metering technologies ...................................................................................... 5

3.1. “Simple” water meter technology .............................................................................. 5

3.2. “Realtime” / “smart” water meter technology ............................................................ 5

3.3. Technology comparison ........................................................................................... 8

3.4. Integration ................................................................................................................. 9

3.5. Real-time Metering Project Costing ........................................................................ 10

4. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 12

Appendix A – Aquamonitor™ ................................................................................................ 13

Appendix B - Greensense; Greensense View® Proposal 24 June 2014 .............................. 17

A17


City of Belmont P a g e | 1

1. Introduction

The City of Belmont (the City) became a Waterwise Council in 2010 and has since remained committed to ensuring it applies best practice to water use within and outside of its Council owned facilities.

The use of realtime metering for scheme water is increasing throughout industries, particularly around process control, reporting requirements and awareness campaigns for the use of water. Realtime metering allows organisations to track and monitor their water usage remotely and “as it happens” to better manage water as a commodity.

Annual scheme water audits on council facilities often recommend the installation of a realtime meter or the use of submeters (secondary meters) so that water usage within a facility can be monitored at a high level of accuracy and accountability. To date, the need for submetering has not been considered required. However as Perth and Western Australia continue to receive less winter rainfall and water rates increase, the feasibility and overall value of submetering could be realised.

Action 1.3 of the City’s Environment Plan 2010-2015 was for the City to “Develop a business case for the use of real time technology for monitoring water use in Council facilities”. This short report details the setup of a realtime metering program with some preliminary costs.

A18



2. Metering and Submetering

The normal configuration for most facilities is for the site to be supplied with scheme water/ mains water read through a primary Water Corporation meter located in the verge (Figure 3). Water is accounted for prior to entering the facility and use is charged back to the property owner or account holder.

Submetering is the installation of secondary meters, generally located within the building, to then further account for individual water usages (Figure 2). For example, buildings with multiple levels can have a meter per level, affixed to particular amenities (i.e. kitchens, air-conditioning units etc) or meters for different identities (i.e. lease holders). This allows the information from the mains meter to be interrogated to see where water is actually being used.

Figure 1: Meters in sequence to form a submetering program (Left: Normal meter arrangement. Right: meters installed in sequence after the primary meter)

Complexity may be encountered when submetering smaller facilities and is generally not deployed within these as water is already easily accountable. It is important that when designing the metering program, the water use fixtures or “end uses” are known so that what is being metered can be accounted for. Errors often arise when a meter is affixed to a system which has water uses which are not accounted for, for example, a meter reading the water use for two levels however it was originally thought it was for one level. For this reason, a clear understanding of the pipework and water connections within the facility is required.

2.1. Why submeter?

The objective of submetering is to get a more accurate account of water use and where it is being used. Data collected from a submetering program can then inform the organisation for the on-charge of water usage fees, be used to demonstrate where water use as part of an awareness campaign, or identify leeks and unaccounted water usage.

A19



The original cost of a submetering programme is generally recouped either through facility upgrades, whereby meters are installed, or through water savings received through awareness programs. The payback period on submeter assets will depend on the technology deployed, and the reduction of water use offsetting incremental increases in water use charges.

2.2. Water as a chargeable commodity

Water use in City vested facilities is generally for the activities associated with those facilities, for example toilets, amenities, showers, cleaning and some cooking or food preparation. The City does own and lease some aged care facilities where water is distributed to individual units within a complex and some larger complexes where there are separate tenants (ie Youth and Family Centre, Abernethy Road).

Water tariffs and water use within these sites is generally borne onto the account holder and or the lease holder, unless there is an existing agreement with the City to bear the costs. Some of the aged care facilities are currently supplied by one scheme water connection and subsequently one meter. It could be these sites which value from a submetering program, as accurate water readings can be used to inform each unit holder of their water use or used to on-charge water tariffs if consumption is above an agreed volume.

Currently water is charged back to account holders by the Water Corporation at $2.043 per kilolitre (per one thousand litres) (Water Corporation, 2014). The price of water will weigh heavily on the decision to implement a submetering programme at a facility and will assist in determining the payback period or return on investment.

A20



2.3. Why use realtime water metering in comparison to conventional meters

Realtime water meters are often aimed at gathering detailed, accurate and continuous data which is reported more frequently to a central server(s). These technologies can use wireless internet (i.e. WIFI, 2G, and 3G) or Bluetooth to send data back to a central server where it can be monitored and graphed in “realtime”. This is ideal for sites which are remote and are not regularly accessed. For other sites, this data is ideal for awareness campaigns where you want to demonstrate water use across a short time period and as a “realtime” response to activities within a building.

Realtime water meters otherwise remove the need for someone to manually read the meter and increases the amount of information you are gathering. The information is also in greater detail with flow rates or volumes being recorded at varying intervals.

Realtime meters are ideal for leak detection or identifying any unaccounted water uses (i.e. water use after hours, at a closed facility) through the ability to view continuous data rather than cumulative data or consumptive data (Figure 1) gained through conventional meters. This means faults can be identified and rectified and the facility can be as water efficient as possible.

Figure 2: Example of realtime consumption data read half-hourly (left) versus consumption data read daily from a conventional meter (right)

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

1:00

:00

PM

2:30

:00

PM

4:00

:00

PM

5:30

:00

PM

7:00

:00

PM

8:30

:00

PM

10:0

0:00

PM

11

:30:

00 P

M

1:00

:00

AM

2:30

:00

AM

4:00

:00

AM

5:30

:00

AM

7:00

:00

AM

8:30

:00

AM

10:0

0:00

AM

11

:30:

00 A

M

4/06/2014 5/06/2014

Consumption Half Hour (L)

144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158 160 162

1:00

:00

PM

3:00

:00

PM

5:00

:00

PM

7:00

:00

PM

9:00

:00

PM

11:0

0:00

PM

1:

00:0

0 AM

3:

00:0

0 AM

5:

00:0

0 AM

7:

00:0

0 AM

9:

00:0

0 AM

11

:00:

00 A

M

4/06/2014 5/06/2014

Consumption Daly (L)

A21



3. Available metering technologies

Generally, the technology deployed in a metering program will be determined by the program objective. If the objective is to account for water uses and on-charge this, then “simple” meters can be deployed at a low cost. If however the objective of the program is to account for varying water usages and break down a facility’s water consumption for an awareness campaign, then the use of more advanced meters may be used.

3.1. “Simple” water meter technology

Flowmeters are essentially simple items; as water flows through the device, wheels within the device turn to count flow rates. These then turn a dial to display volumes. This can then be read, recorded and reported in any format. These flowmeters are commonly used, do not report wirelessly, are not considered “realtime” and will require access so that they can be read. These meters are however, ideal for “cheap” submeter projects which are reporting at long term intervals, for example monthly volumes or water use throughout a facility, and are relatively cost effective.

Figure 3: analogue water meters

3.2. “Realtime” / “smart” water meter technology

“Realtime” meter technologies enhance the “simple” water meter via having an inbuilt or attachable transmitter which sends water meter information to a server. This removes the need to read the meter manually and increases the information being collected from the meter. Not only are there costs associated with the purchase of the initial meter/adapter, there are also ongoing costs in regards to the transmitting of data (mobile web sims and data packages), possible server licences (websites) and battery replacement or the installation of solar technologies if power is not available.

Aquamonitor™ Australia supply a Wireless Internet (WiFi) enabled package (M4 Monitor) which includes an optional display unit and one mains sensor (Figure 4) with a DC power adaptor for $249.00 ($AU 2013/14) (http://aquamonitor.com.au/store/model-options/). This device reports water use to an indoor display unit (Figure 5), Aquamonitor™ software or via a Modbus to private building management systems (BMS), where it can be viewed using third party user software.

A22

http://aquamonitor.com.au/store/model-options/



A cheaper (M305) unit can be purchased for $151.90 which is a Bluetooth™ enabled attachment and fits to pulse capable flowmeters. This reports water use data to a Smartphone application (iSO Apple™ or Android™ devises) where it can be integrated as hourly, daily and weekly totals. Alarms can also be set to indicate water leaks or excessive usage.

Figure 4: Aquamonitor mains sensor (M4) Figure 5: Aquamonitor™ display unit (M4 Monitor)

Aquamonitor™, depending on the chosen unit(s), can include reporting and alert tools, such as per person consumption, 24 hour and 7 day use graph, alarms for daily limits, use at night and for leaks. Further information on the Aquamonitor is available in Appendix A.

Other providers of “realtime” flowmeter technologies include Greensense with Greensense View®. Greensense are a provider of online sustainability performance monitoring and engagement platforms which monitor and report on energy, waste and water use. Greensense View® works similarly to Aquamonitor™ in the sense it retrofits most conventional water meters with a data transmitter. Greensense View® then connects water meters to the Greensense central server where data is processed and analysed in greater detail and reported back to the occupants of the buildings through online virtual reports displayed on virtual and interactive dashboards or on digital signs.

As this is a more technical process there is of course additional cost. However, the Greensense View® platform is more targeted at interactive awareness programs whereby the data is reported on a “dashboard” specifically designed and branded for the organisation (Figure 6). The Greensense data acquisition unit comes at a once off cost of $1,001.30 (2013/14) which includes the pulse attachment and the battery powered and web enabled (3G) pulse counter.

As Greensense provide an interactive platform, there is a professional services fee of $3,675.00 which is inclusive of project management, hardware implementation, service provisioning and handover. This includes the setting up of the reporting platforms and branded interactive “dashboard”. Data access however requires an annual 3G data package fee of $150.00 and software service fee of $3,000.00 per annum. Inclusive of GST, one site would cost $8,608.93 with additional sites added to the platform at the cost of the data acquisition meter (Greensense, 2014). A quotation has been received from Greensense and is attached as Appendix B.

A23



Figure 6: example of Greensense View Dashboard

A24



3.3. Technology comparison

The table below compares the advantages and preliminary costs of using either a standard, manual read meter, or a realtime automated meter at one site. Please note that this comparison has been made on advertised devices and does not factor in any discounts in regards to “economies of scale” or multiple devices.

Table 1: Comparison of standard and real-time technologies and their capabilities; ^The features of real-time meters will vary depending on the type of technology purchased and the reporting platform it is sending data to. Overall features may depend on the reporting tools embedded into software or the web-based platform rather than the capability of the meter itself. Please note that costs are preliminary.

Standard ^Realtime

Reading Manual Automated

Data reporting frequency Daily consumption with manual reading

15 min consumption intervals reported daily

automatically

Consumption reporting

Half-hourly, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annual

Manual calculation – Daily consumption to annual

Depending on data storage, consumption data can be calculated from 15 minute intervals through to annual

Alarm for leak detection Alarm for night use

Water use per person Manual calculation

Interactive module for behaviour change Web based or internal reporting

Web based or internal interactive reporting

Realtime flow rates

Multiple access/ view points (dependent on data transmitting capabilities)

Power requirements (battery, mains or solar)

Telephony/ Internet requirements and ongoing costs

(WiFi or 2G/3G)

$150 pa

Ability to sub-meter Manual calculation

Replacement of meter (if current meter is pulse or fly wheel compatible)

Conversion to $/L Manual calculation (d, w, m, y)

Initial price of meter and additional meters (per meter)

$200 $151.90 (Aquamonitor)

$1,001.30 (Greensense)

Ongoing reporting costs Officer time Officer time + web server $3,000 pa (Greensense

View)

Estimated annual cost Officer time + Officer time + $8,608.93

A25



3.4. Integration

The integration of either technology will depend on the desired outcome of a project. Some conceptual scenarios have been discussed below to illustrate the different programs realtime water metering could be included in and their expected outcomes and returns.

Table 2: Conceptual projects detailing desired outcomes and returns on investment (water savings)

Project Desired Outcomes Returns

A

“Current meters are manually read at 9 am every Monday to collect weekly consumption data and report to staff on

water use.”

Weekly consumption data.

Seasonal variation.

Awareness of water use.

Some behaviour change based on reporting and general awareness.

Some cost savings through water reduction.

B

“Water meters are retrofitted with real-time data transmitters which report flow rates, hourly water use and daily water use

with data being reported to Staff at the end of each week.”

+

Daily use and hourly use to demonstrate when water is

being used.

Leak identification and water use “over-night”.

Increased behaviour change through awareness of leaks,

reporting of unusual water use.

+

Increased reporting of leaks to be rectified.

Return on investment through water use reduction.

C

“Water meters are retrofitted with real-time data transmitters

and interactive displays are installed in buildings to

demonstrate water use per site in real time.”

+

Detailed water use per identified area (i.e. lease holder).

+

Increase ROI through possible reimbursement of water use

charges from facility occupiers (short or long term).

A26



3.5. Real-time Metering Project Costing

The technology required for selected scenarios as discussed in 3.4, have been costed and itemised to provide an indicative initial capital requirement and any ongoing annual charges (Table 3). For comparison purposes, the total cost of each scenario has also been converted to the equivalent water volume, which would otherwise be required to be saved in order to offset (payback) the cost of the scenario. The volume required to be conserved through implementing the scenario has been based on the 2013-2014 Water Corporation scheme water rate of $2.043 per kilolitre (thousand litres). Scenario A does not include the purchase of real-time meters or reporting software and as such has not been costed.

Pay back periods are assumed at a 15% reduction in water use (return on investment), at each site, in comparison to 2013-2014 water use. This reduction figure has been selected as an arbitrary figure which would otherwise return water use to 2008/09 water consumption levels. As such the below scenario costings should only be treated as indicative, as 15% may not be possible at all sites and would therefore influence whether the initial and ongoing payback is achievable. It should be noted that this water reduction may only be possible after an investment in water efficient fixtures, awareness campaigns and ongoing and active maintenance of each facility. Real-time monitoring alone may reduce some water consumption through the identification of leaks, allowing for immediate investigation and repair.

As illustrated, the use of a simple water meter, the Aquamonitor range, would be the most cost effective and would return the greatest financial return on investment at the achievement of a 15% reduction. Scenario B-2 however illustrates that a jump to more complex technology, Greensense, at one site, would require greater initial investment and therefore extend the payback period to 5.5 years for the initial capital. However, it also illustrates that a 15% reduction and associated financial savings would not cover the annual costs associated with licence fees and telemetry. However, if the City were to integrate several sites and achieve a 15% reduction at each site, the total water saved would pay back the initial capital in 3.5 years. Thereafter, additional annual water savings above the original 15% goal may cover the annual costs of telemetry and licence fees.

A27



Table 3: Indicative total capital requirements and ongoing costs in comparison to the required volume to be conserved and payback period per selected conceptual scenarios

Scenario Items required Total Cost ($ 2013-14)

Equivalent Volume (kL)

Cost Savings and Pay Back Period (years) at 15% reduction per site

B-1

Aquamonitor and display unit at one site

1 x M4 Meter $151.90

1 x M4 Monitor $249.00

$400.90 196.23 kL $1,459 saved per year = 0.3 Years for initial capital

B-2

Greensense at one site (i.e. Civic Centre)

1 x Greensense Meter $1,001.30

1 x Professional services $3,675.00 (one off)

1 x Licence $3,000.00 (annual)

1 x Telemetry for transmitting data $150.00 (annual)

$7,826.30 (First year) $3,150.00 annually thereafter

3,831 kL (to cover the cost of all upfront costs) 1,542 kL annually to cover the cost of annual expenses (licence and transmitting)

Annual costs cannot be recouped via water savings

C-1

Greensense at: 1. Faulkner Park

Retirement Village

2. Civic Centre 3. Belmont

Community Nursing Home

4. Orana Aged Housing

5. Youth Centre 6. Wahroonga Aged

Housing 7. Ascot Kayak

Club and Kiosk 8. Ascot Close

Aged Housing 9. Operations

Centre

9 x Greensense Meters $978.80

1 x Professional services $12,915.00 (one off)

1 x Licence $3,000.00 (annual)

9 x Telemetry for transmitting data $150.00 (annual)

2 x Interactive screens $650 (Library and Civic Centre)

$28,503.00 (First Year) $4,500.00 annually thereafter

13,951 kL (to cover the cost of all upfront costs) 2,203 kL annually to cover the cost of annual expenses (licence and transmitting)

The repayment of the initial capital plus annual expenses will be recouped by the 6th year after implementation.

The C-1 selected sites were identified during the 2012-2013 scheme water reinventory as high consumption sites and are recommended for further investigation. Due to the large volumes of water being consumed at these sites, they became viable for selection in a real-time metering program.

A28



4. Conclusion and Recommendations

As discussed, there are a range of options in regards to the use of water monitoring and realtime technologies. The choice of technologies utilised in a program will be dependent on the desired outcomes of that program and as such the initial financial implications will be based on this choice. However, initial capital for realtime metering can range from officer time and an initial set up cost of around $151.90 to as high as $28,503 for a more advanced system at multiple sites. Ongoing maintenance costs will also depend on the scale of the program and technology deployed.

As identified in section 3.5, the implementation of a realtime water metering program with the inclusion of nine sites (C-1) could be a viable option however its inclusion at one site (B-2), unless done at a simplistic scale (B-1), may not be financially viable. A water metering program however should not be undertaken in isolation and not without the inclusion of water efficiency retrofits and an awareness campaign. Whilst water metering and basic awareness may assist in a minor reduction in water, simply through people’s perception of water being tangible (i.e. I can now record and see it, therefore I have control of it), it would not be a sufficient reduction in water consumption to return a substantial savings in expenditure.

The achievement of a reduction in water consumption may only be possible through the implementation of water efficiency retrofits and a behaviour change in occupants. It should also be noted that, for some of the sites identified in the 2012-2013 scheme water reinventory, the current water use may be based on occupancy rather than inefficiencies or “water waste”. Therefore a reduction in water consumption may not be possible as the site may already be fitted with water efficient devices with occupants using water for required tasks at a required and appropriate volume.

It is therefore recommended that:

1. The feasibility of achieving the stated 15% reduction in water consumption should be confirmed, through an investigation into similar facilities where water metering projects have been implemented.

2. The City to identify the program or project requirement for the use of these technologies in City managed facilities and that once this is established, further costs be generated and incorporated into a detailed business case with confirmed return on investments and payback periods

3. For the identified water conservation program or project a detailed business case to be considered for implementation in the 2016/17 financial year.

A29



Appendix A – Aquamonitor™

A30



A31



A32



A33



Appendix B - Greensense; Greensense View® Proposal 24 June 2014

A34



A35



A36



A37



A38



A39



A40



A41



A42



A43



A44



A45



A46



A47



A48



A49

use of realtime water flowmeters in council · pdf fileuse of realtime water flowmeters in...

Documents