2025 P3 Project Overviews

All projects funded by Nebraska Department of Water, Energy and Environment

Florence Blankson

NITAC Intern: Florence Blankson 

Major: PhD Civil Engineering

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)

 

Company Background

Assisted five facilities, including those in sectors ranging from doors, office furniture, chemical production, municipal wastewater, and mineral processing.

 

Recommendations

A total of five recommendations aimed at improving efficiency and reducing environmental impact were completed, while two more are still in progress. These recommendations, if implemented, are projected to yield significant energy and cost savings while also contributing to the reduction of GHG emissions, a summary of which can be found in Table 1. 

 

Table 1: Summary of Assessment Recommendation Savings

Assessment Recommendation 
(AR)

Annual Savings

Implementation Cost ($)


Simple Payback (Years)

 

Resource (Unit/year)

GHG Reduction (MTCO2e)

Dollars

($/year)

AR No. 1: Compressed Air System Management Program

1,194,410 kWh/year

508 MTCO2e

$77,140

-

-

AR No. 2: Apply for Tax Exemption on Electricity and Water

-

-

$6,308

$4,304

0.7

AR No. 3: Compressed Air Booster for 130 psi Machines

68,789 kWh/year

28.9

$2,339

$3,448

1.5 

AR No. 4: Install Compressor Cool Air Intake

17,257 kWh/year

7.3 MTCO2e

$824

$4,650

5.7 

AR No. 5: Upgrade Facility Exit Signs

944 kWh/year

0.4 MTCO2e

$407

$423

1.0

Total*

1,281,400 kWh/year

545

$87,018

$12,825

0.1

 

Budoor Alsaadi

NIAC Intern: Budoor Alsaadi

Major: Ms. in Environmental Engineering 

School: University of Nebraska- Lincoln 

 

Summer Activities

Participated in four NIAC assessments during the summer, taking on both analyst and coordinator roles. The first assessment was at an electrical equipment manufacturer, serving as a safety coordinator. The second assessment was at a door manufacturer, serving as the equipment coordinator. The third assessment was at a food processing facility, where Budoor contributed as an analyst. The final assessment was at a pharmaceutical manufacturer, serving as the equipment coordinator.

 

Recommendations Description

Across all four assessments ARs aimed at cost and energy savings were prepared, including applying for natural-gas tax exemptions and adjusting the air-compressor setpoint. At the second facility, there was a focus on equipment operations, recommending to install horizontal HVLS fans for better air movement and to implement a steel-waste donation program to reduce disposal costs and support reuse. For the food-processing facility, an AR to install an anaerobic digester for energy recovery and an AR to install a boiler-water analyzer and controller to tighten blowdown and chemical control were written. At the pharmaceutical manufacturer, equipment inspections were coordinated and the adjustment of the compressed air setpoint and adding an expansion tank to stabilize supply and cut electricity use were recommended.

 

Table 1-1: Assessment Recommendations Summary

Assessment Recommendation (AR)

Annual Savings

Capital Investment

Simple Payback (Years)

Resource (Unit/year)

GHG Reduction (MTCO₂e/year)

Dollars ($/year)

AR No. 1: Apply for Tax Exemptions for Natural Gas

-

$471

$416

0.9 year

AR No. 2: Adjust the Air Compressor Setpoint

9,958 kWh

4.2 

$723

$26

 0.04 year

AR No. 3: Steel Scrap Donation

-

-

$13,580

$600

0.44 year

AR No. 4: Install Horizontal HVLS Fans

42,478 kWh

19.2

$3,041

$54,600

1.2 year

AR No. 5: Reduce Compressed Air Operating Pressure and Install Storage Tank

30,081 kWh

13.6

$1,715

$15,825

OM

AR No. 6: Implement an Anaerobic Digester

558,735 kWh

238.4

$13,968

OM

OM

AR No. 7: Install a boiler water analyzer and controller 

-

7.14

$836

$3,479

0.24 year 

Total

641,252 kWh

282.54

$18,651

$59,121

2.38 year


 

 

Ashkan Asadish

NITAC Intern: Ashkan Asadish

Major: Architectural Engineering

School: University of Nebraska – Lincoln

 

Summer Activities

Worked with the NITAC in Summer 2025, conducting on-site energy assessments for five industrial facilities. The work involved field data collection, staff interviews, utility analysis, engineering calculations, vendor outreach, and preparation of Assessment Recommendations (ARs) and Other Measures (OMs). The sectors assessed included healthcare, food processing, office furniture, and mineral processing.

Cost and Energy Benefits 

The ARs and OMs together have the potential to deliver annual savings of 403,862 kWh of electricity, 48,402 therms of natural gas, and $278,192 in costs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 197.3 MTCO2e. The following Table 1 summarize the savings for all ARs and OMs:

Table 1: List of Savings for all ARs and OMs

AR/OM Name

Energy Savings (kWh/year)

GHG Emission Reduction (MTCO2e/year)

Cost Savings

($/year)

Impl. Cost

($)

Simple Payback

(years)

Install Feedlot Sensors for Old Economizers

6,948

3.2

$379

$1,435

3.8 

Replace Old Rooftop Units

24,424

11.4

$1,343

$62,748

46.7 

Reduce Compressed Air Leaks in the Distribution System

108,360

45.5

$2,976

$3,500

1.2 

Replace V-Belts in Mixer with Cogged Belts

956

0.4

$90

$260

2.9 

Installing Variable Frequency Drive on Bakery Mixer Motor

8,670

3.9

$546

$7,580

13.8 

Leaking Jacketed Tank Replacement

3,864

1.8

$6,403

$400,000

>50 

Implementing a Steam Trap Maintenance Program

--

25.7

$25,169

$25,169

0.1 

Reduce Compressed Air Leaks in the Distribution System

247,940

105.4

$10,406

$9,000

0.9

Replace Screw Conveyor with Belt Conveyor for Sand Handling

--

--

$230,880

$214,000

0.9 

Totals

403,862

197.3

$278,192

$723,692

2.6 Years

 

Brandon Cervania

NITAC Intern: Brandon Cervania 

Major: Mechanical Engineering

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) 

 

Summer Activities 

Joined NITAC as an intern this summer. This included being trained to make environmental and cost saving recommendations for manufacturing facilities and collaborated with other interns as well as the directors of NITAC/P3 to work towards learning to become an analyst on manufacturing facility assessments.

 

Company Background 

Five facilities were assessed, across sectors such as rubber components, food processing, municipal wastewater, tape manufacturing, and doors.

 

Pollution Prevention Benefits 

Some tangible and intangible benefits to the facilities include a significant reduction in their GHG emissions, improved worker satisfaction, as well as process optimization. 

 

Results

Table 1 below summarizes the pollution prevention impact the recommendations will have if all are implemented. 

Table 1: Pollution Prevention Benefits and Results

Recommendation

Annual Energy Savings

Annual GHG Reduction (MTCO2e)

Annual Cost Savings

therms/year

kWh/year

Connect Sewer Piping to Storm Drain

-

-

-

$43,542

Add Insulation to Preheat Air for the Oven

609

-

3.2

$609

Upgrade Facility Lighting

-

4,031

1.7

$293

Add Insulation for Maintenance Building

538

-

2.9

$430

Chiller Operation Hours Optimization

-

303,750

129

$9,491

Totals

1,147

307,781

136.8

$54,365

 

Thomas Haar

Nebraska Industrial Assessment Center Intern: Thomas Haar

Major: B.S. Chemical Engineering 

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) 

 

Summer Activities

Took part in six assessments this summer with a variety of responsibilities, leading one, contributing as an analyst on all, and stepping in as safety coordinator for one visit and equipment manager for another.

Company Background 

Assisted six facilities during this project, each with a unique role in their industries. 

Pollution Prevention Benefits

Across these diverse operations, pollution prevention efforts should result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, streamlined processes, and improved operational efficiency, reinforcing both environmental responsibility and business performance. Table 1 below summarizes the impact on pollution prevention that my recommendations will have if all are implemented.

Table 1: Summary of Savings

AR

Annual Energy Savings (kWh)

Annual GHG Reductions (MTCO2e)

Annual Cost Savings

Upgrade Facility Lighting to LEDS

39,787 

18.0 

$3,980 

Implement Occupancy Sensors

 29,016

 13.1

$2,092 

Replace Inefficient Shrink Wrapper

 33,418

 14.0

$6,723 

Implement Compressed Air Blowoff Alternative

 3,513

 1.5

 $111

Repair Compressed Air Leaks

63,420

26.4

$2,905

Implement Demand Management

 --

 --

$628 

Total Sum

 169,154

73 

$16,439 

 

Juriah Lawson

NITAC Intern: Juriah Lawson

Major: Mechanical Engineering

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

 

Recommendations Made and Special Project

Juriah went on a total of five assessments over the summer. The first assessment was at a hospital, followed by a wood processer, tortilla producer, concrete equipment manufacturer, and finally a sand processor. The assessment at the sand processing plant was led by Juriah right before the submission of this report. During these assessments, recommendations were made yielding in potential cost, energy, and greenhouse gas emission savings as shown in Table 1-1. I first found the savings in reducing downtime and reducing equipment failure through implementing new automatic transfer switches. The use of cogged belts for belt-driven supply fans for rooftop AC units was also recommended. Lockout tagout covers were suggested to prevent the inappropriate use of compressed air for cooling bearings. Additionally, two facilities were helped apply for tax exemption on their water and electric bill. Finally, it was recommended that a facility replace their electric heaters with natural gas heaters. An additional measure to insulate hot piping found near some boilers was also suggested.

For the special project, a video to demonstrate how to use and analyze the data gathered from our three-phase power loggers was made.

 

Table 1-1: Assessment Recommendations Summary 

Assessment Recommendation (AR)

Annual Savings

Capital Investment

Simple Payback (Years)

Resource (Unit/year)

GHG 

(MTCO2e)

Dollars ($/year)

Replace Automatic Transfer Switches

-

-

$2,210/yr

$30,000

13.6 years

Replace V-Belts with Cogged Belts

97,680 kWh/yr

41.5 MTCO2e/yr

$113/yr

$547

4.8 years

Install Lockout Covers on Compressed Air Lines

118,537 kWh/yr

50.4 MTCO2e/yr

$5,927/yr

$510

0.1 years

Apply for Water Tax Exemption

-

-

$366/yr

$120

0.3 years

Replace Resistance Heaters with Radiant Tube Heaters

265.9 kW/yr

50.4 MTCO2e/yr

$7,996/yr

$11,349

1.4 years

Apply for Tax Exemption on Electricity

-

-

$1,502/yr

$6,250

4.2 years

Total Sum*

142.3 MTCO2e/year

$18,114/yr

$48,776

2.7 years

 

Carsen Nelson

NITAC Intern: Carsen Nelson

Major: Chemical Engineering

School: University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Summer Activities:

Participated in 4 NITAC assessments, with a leading role on the second, a metal door manufacturer. The first assessment was at a community hospital. The third assessment was at a food manufacturing plant. The fourth and final assessment was at a concrete machine manufacturing facility.

Recommendations Descriptions:

On the first assessment, an AR for upgrading the facility’s lighting to LEDs was written, as well as an OM for upgrading the facility’s exit signs to LEDs. For the lead assessment, an AR was prepared suggesting the facility apply for tax exemptions where they are qualified to save extra annual costs. For the third assessment, an AR was written suggesting that the facility set up a compressed air management plan to detect and repair any leaks in the system. An AR was also written suggesting the facility install VFDs on their compressors to save on usage costs. For the fourth and final assessment, an AR was written suggesting the facility replace their v-belts with cogged v-belts and a suggestion that they install a cool air intake on their compressor. The recommendations are listed chronologically below in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Assessment Recommendations Summary

Assessment Recommendation (AR)

Annual Savings

Capital Investment

Simple Payback (years)

Resource (unit/yr)

GHG Reduction (MTCO2e/yr)

Cost ($/yr)

AR No. 1: Upgrade Facility Lighting

4,916 kWh/yr

4.7  

$443

$783

1.8 years

AR No. 2: Upgrade Facility Exit Signs

1,253 kWh/yr

1.2

$93

$320

3.4 years

AR No. 3: Apply for Tax Exemption when Qualified

-

-

$5,745

$2,300

0.4 years

AR No. 4: Reduce Air Leaks in the Distribution System

52,020 kWh/yr

22.2

$2,953

$600

0.2 years

AR No. 5: Install VFD on Compressed Air System

147,540 kWh/yr

62.9

$12,629

$11,440

0.9 years

AR No. 6: Replace V-Belts with Cogged V-Belts

3,424 kWh/yr

1.5

$274

$1,558

5.7 years

AR No. 7: Using Cool Air Intake for Compressor

8,010 kWh/yr

3.4

$481

$1,785

3.7 years

Totals

217,163 kWh/yr

95.9

$22,618

$18,786

0.8 years

Seth Pennell

NITAC Intern: Seth Pennell

Major: Electrical Engineering

School: University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Project Overview

Summer Activities:

This summer, 5 NITAC assessments, one of which was as the lead student. The goal was to write recommendations that save energy and/or money for the client. For each assessment attended not as the lead, one or two assessment recommendations (ARs) or other measures (OMs) were written.

Topics:

Prepared ARs and OMs covered the following topics: installation of occupancy sensors, repair compressed air leaks, installation of recuperator for a burn-off oven, replacement of V-belts with cogged belts, installation of VFDs for compressors, and delay of startup time. A special report was written about a company’s product which claims to reduce energy usage by filtering ground and neutral harmonics, concluding that the product is likely illegitimate. If companies or assessment leads believe that power quality is an issue, it was noted that professional power quality audits are a better option than using the product analyzed.

Lead Report Savings:

In the report for the lead assessment, the potential annual savings from measures recommended are: 167 gal of oil, 165 gal of paint, 279,000 kWh, 851.1 kW-months, 9,932 therms of natural gas, 64.8 MTCO2e (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent), and $111,211. 

Individual Recommendation Savings:

Table 1: Summary of Savings

 Individual AR

Energy Savings

GHG Reduction

Cost Savings

Replace V-Belts with Cogged Belts

3,560 kWh/year

1.5 MTCO2e/year

$341/year

Repair Compressed Air Leaks

418 kWh/year

0.2 MTCO2e/year

$23/year

Install Occupancy Sensors

3,137 kWh/year

1.3 MTCO2e/year

$279/year

Delay Startup Time

5,896 kWh/year

2.5 MTCO2e/year

$354/year

Total

13,011 kWh/year

5.5 MTCO2e/year

$997/year

Khanh Le

Nebraska Industrial Assessment Center Intern: Khanh Le

Major: Mechanical Engineering and Math

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

 

Assessment Overview:

This summer, I worked with other NITAC interns and worked on 5 different assessments. I was an equipment manager on two assessments and a safety coordinator on one assessment. The five assessments I participated in included sectors such as electronics, food processing, wastewater treatment, construction materials, and durable goods.

 

Special Project:

For my special project, I reviewed other special projects made by past NITAC interns and organized them. I categorized them, summarized them, and determined what situations they may be useful in. I compiled all this information into an Excel sheet to easily search for specific projects.

 

Results:

In the following table summarizes the recommendations prepared over the summer and their impacts if they were to be implemented. Some of the recommendations have the same title but are for different facilities.

 

Assessment Recommendation

Annual Energy Savings (kWh/year)

Annual GHG Reduction (MTCO₂e/year)

Annual Cost Savings ($/year)

Install Irrigation Deduct Meter

-

-

$564

Replace Compression Presses with New Model

798,720

361.8

$1,107,096

Replace Injection Molding Machines with New Model

966,701

437.9

$542,223

Replace V-Belts with Cogged V-Belts

10,672

10.3

$600

Replace V-Belts with Cogged V-Belts

2,673

1.2

$177

Replace Photocell Sensor on Streetlight

1,095

0.5

$53

Upgrade Streetlights to LED Bulbs

18,921

8.6

$2,200

Reduce Air Leaks in the Distribution System

25,770

20.8

$946

Replace Current Spray Gun with Electrostatic Spray Gun

-

-

$8,794

Total

1,824,552

841.1

1,662,653

 

Trent Kisker

NITAC Intern: Trent Kisker

Major: Mechanical Engineering

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Overview of Assessments

Had the opportunity to go on assessments to five facilities over the summer. Some of the recommendations included working on shifting equipment use. This allowed for a decrease in the demand of the facility, saving money throughout the year. One of the more technical recommendations that was worked on included heat recovery. One application was relatively simple, figuring out the savings associated with venting heat from an air compressor onto the manufacturing floor to help reduce the heating load during the winter. The other application involved a heat exchanger along with a glycol loop to transfer exhaust heat back into the process. The replacement and upgrading of machinery were also investigated. Other AR’s general included compressed air and deduct meters. 

Special Project 

Trent’s special project was over the topic of solar energy. These included solar panels, battery storage, facility types, community solar, rebates and incentives, and talking with vendors. With solar panels the different types and how each one might be beneficial to manufacturers were investigated. From research it was determined due to higher efficiency that bi-facial panels allow for the most energy being gathered along with durability. Battery storage is an important aspect of solar energy as the sun isn’t always shining and currently lithium-ion batteries only last for about 4 hours before needing to be recharged. With the introduction of iron-oxide batteries, it could allow for cheaper and longer lasting energy storage. Community solar is a great concept allowing the public to participate in renewable energy without the need to install solar power of their own. However, for manufacturers it doesn’t make much sense due to the additional cost associated with participation as well as not saving any money. Rebates and incentives are going away as solar becomes more common. Another big encouragement of renewable energy is the Investment Tax Credit. Expanded in 2022 it allows for a 30% tax credit on installing solar. However, due to recent passage of a bill in July, this will be dissolved in 2028. 

Table: Pollution Prevention Benefits and Results

RecommendationAnnual Energy Savings (kWh/year)Annual GHG Reduction (MTCO2e)Annual Cost Savings ($/year)
Install Deduct Meter in Main Facility--$3,352
Fix Distribution Center Deduct Meter  $910
Retrofit Burn-In Tester with Regenerative Load38,880 kWh16.5 MTCO2e$9857
Stagger Burn-in Testers--$2,457
Reduce Compressed Air Leaks in the System29,370 kWh23.7 MTCO2e$2,489
Replace Vertical Turning Lathe-1.7 MTCO2e$90,884
Total Sum68,250 kWh41.9 MTCO2e$109,949

 

Mia Perales

NITAC Intern: Mia Perales

Major: Environmental Engineering 

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)

 

Purpose:

 

The purpose of this project is to provide a summary of the work completed and progress made over the summer on assessments as an analyst and lead student. This includes assessment recommendations at various stages of completion, work specific to lead student requirements, and a special project. 

Facility Information:

Four assessments were completed this summer, including: Lester Electrical in Lincoln NE, American Wood Fibers in Pella, IA, Mi Mama’s in Omaha, NE, and American Laboratories in Omaha, NE. The assessment at Lester Electrical was completed as the equipment coordinator and one AR for upgraded lighting was completed. The second facility visited was American Wood Fibers, which was assessed as the safety coordinator and two AR’s were completed, one for Venturi Nozzles for Air Dusters and one for replacing V-Belts with Cogged V-Belts. The third facility visited was Mi Mama’s where one AR for Upgrading Dust Collector Valves was completed. The fourth facility visited was American Laboratories, which was assessed as the lead student, which included preliminary research, preparation of presentations, organizing transportation, utility analysis, and writing of the final report as additional responsibilities. For this assessment one AR for HVLS Fan Implementation was completed.

Pollution Prevention Benefits:

Some intangible benefits to the facilities include a significant reduction in their GHG emissions, improved worker safety and satisfaction, and maintenance optimization. Summarized below in Table 1 are the results of the pollution prevention impact the recommendations will have if all are completed. 

Table 1: Pollution Prevention Benefits and Results

Assessment Recommendation

Annual Energy Savings (kWh/year)

Annual GHG Reduction (MTCO2e/year)

Annual Cost Savings ($/year)

Upgrade Facility Lighting

211,914

90.1  

$20,339

Venturi Nozzles for Air Dusters

16,196

13.0

$793

Replace V-Belts with Cogged V-Belts

12,368

5.6

$1,051

Upgrade Dust Collector Valves

4,752

2.1

$299

Install an HVLS Fan

-

-

$17,877

Total Sum*

245,230

110.8

$40,060

Nga Pham

NITAC Intern: Nga Pham 

Major: Electrical Engineering Undergraduate

School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) 

 

Summer Activities

 Joined a diverse team of analysts on a total of 4 assessments with different roles on each: was the lead on one, an analyst on all, and a safety & equipment coordinator for two site visits. 

 

Company Background

Helped assist 4 facilities.  Thes sectors of these four ranged from food processors, rubber components, wood products, and a chemical producer.

 

Pollution Prevention Benefits

Some tangible and intangible benefits to the facilities include a significant reduction in their GHG emissions, improved worker satisfaction, as well as process optimization. A summary of the benefits can be found in table 1.

Table 1: Pollution Prevention Benefits and Results

Recommendation

Annual

Cost Savings 

Implementation Cost

Payback Period (years)

Annual Energy/Demand Savings

Annual  

GHG  

Reduction (MTCO₂e)

Reduce Air Leaks in the Distribution System

$374

$500

1.3

6,740 kWh

3.1

Shift Fire Pump Testing to Off-Peak Time

$3,060

$90

<0.1

224.4 kW-months/year

-

Shifting Forklifts Charging Schedule

$15,435

$450

<0.1

300.7 kW-months/year

-

Thermal Efficiency Improvement Program

$2,087

$3,960

1.9

267 GJ

-

Total

$20,956

$5,000

0.9 years

-

3.1 MTCO₂e

 

Projects funded by a grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency P3 program

Aiden Gnuse

Intern: Aiden Gnuse
Degrees: BS Biochemistry, BS Microbiology
Major: Chemical Engineering
School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Company Background
Greater Omaha Packing (GOP) is a large beef packing plant located at 3001 L Street in Omaha, Nebraska. Since 1920, GOP has been committed to providing high quality, legendary beef products, industry leadership, and continued improvement. The facility processes on average 2,400 cattle each day and ships to every US state and over seventy different countries. They are recognized as a global business leader in the beef industry and strive to be innovative in sustainability throughout the facility.

Project Description
The primary objective of these projects is to assist in Greater Omaha’s ongoing goals of improving energy efficiency and reducing the environmental impacts of their systems. As a meat processing facility, Greater Omaha generates wastewater and is involved in wastewater management. A key step in this process involves the use of sulfuric acid to neutralize the caustic soda used to treat wastewater, which can be optimized by bulk containment of the acid and potentially looking at alternatives to sulfuric acid that further reduce environmental impacts such as carbon dioxide neutralization. Furthermore, rerouting expelled cold air in roof vents to instead cool pumphouses in the summer was investigated for energy efficiency and indirect benefits.

Pollution Prevention Benefits
Pollution prevention benefits were assessed and given as pollution prevention (P2) recommendations that reduce utility usage, such as electricity. A summary of the utility and source material energy savings, the associated cost savings, and the payback period of each pollution prevention recommendation is listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of P2 recommendations and key statistics.

P2 Recommendation

Electricity Savings

Materials Reduced

GHG Emissions Reduced

Annual Cost Savings

Payback Period

Repair Compressed Air Leaks

51416 kWh/yr

23.93 MTCO2e/yr

$4,473/yr

0.4

Switch from IBC to Bulk Chemical Containers

1430 IBCs/yr

138.74  MTCO2e/yr

$480,282/yr

1.6

Use Boiler Flue Gas to Neutralize Wastewater pH

89.04 US Tons H2SO4/yr

5.09 MTCO2/yr

$60,548/yr

David Karpf

Industrial Placement Intern: David Karpf
Major: Chemical Engineering
School: University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Station: Nebraska Nitrogen, Geneva, Nebraska

Company Background
Nebraska Nitrogen is a vital manufacturer of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer located in Geneva, Nebraska. The team of 34 employees is dedicated to supporting agricultural needs via the production of this fertilizer. Ammonia plays a crucial role in maintaining soil fertility and promoting crop production, ultimately benefiting the farmers and the consumers of the product. With daily production capacity that can reach upwards of 100 tons and storage capabilities of 20,000 tons, Nebraska Nitrogen is paramount in supporting local agriculture sustainability.

Project Description
Anhydrous ammonia synthesis requires high pressures. To bring the product down to a more manageable state, the product goes through a condenser and through a series of pressure letdown drums. In the letdown drums, gaseous ammonia vents off (along with other gases) and is currently sent to the process flare. Ideally, systems are in place to recover and recycle the ammonia from the letdown purge. Recycling the ammonia allows for reforming and the remaining purge gas has the potential to supplement natural gas use in a plant reactor. However, the current system has a design flaw and is not in use. Thus, the project was to investigate the requirements to bring the ammonia purge recovery system back online and to identify the potential savings for implementing this project.

Pollution Prevention Benefits
Recovering the ammonia in the purge gas would lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. The ammonia recovered would be reformed making hydrogen, reducing the amount of fresh natural gas needed in the steam-methane reforming process to make new hydrogen. Additionally, the remaining gases in the purge gas could be burned in the reformer, reducing the BTU requirement from natural gas needed to maintain production and thus reducing emissions related to burning this natural gas.

Results
Implementation of the project was not completed, but significant progress was completed to streamline future implementation. If implemented, the plant could expect to see savings detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Potential Impact

Annual Energy Savings

GHG Reductions

Annual Cost Savings

Implementation Cost

Simple Payback

52,040 MMBTU/year

2,623 MTCO2e

$98,355/year

$68,947

0.70 years

Carson Nichols

NITAC Intern: Carsen Nelson
Major: Chemical Engineering
School: University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Summer Activities:
Participated in 4 NITAC assessments, with a leading role on the second, a metal door manufacturer. The first assessment was at a community hospital. The third assessment was at a food manufacturing plant. The fourth and final assessment was at a concrete machine manufacturing facility.

Recommendations Descriptions:
On the first assessment, an AR for upgrading the facility’s lighting to LEDs was written, as well as an OM for upgrading the facility’s exit signs to LEDs. For the lead assessment, an AR was prepared suggesting the facility apply for tax exemptions where they are qualified to save extra annual costs. For the third assessment, an AR was written suggesting that the facility set up a compressed air management plan to detect and repair any leaks in the system. An AR was also written suggesting the facility install VFDs on their compressors to save on usage costs. For the fourth and final assessment, an AR was written suggesting the facility replace their v-belts with cogged v-belts and a suggestion that they install a cool air intake on their compressor. The recommendations are listed chronologically below in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Assessment Recommendations Summary

Assessment Recommendation (AR)

Annual Savings

Capital Investment

Simple Payback (years)

Resource (unit/yr)

GHG Reduction (MTCO2e/yr)

Cost ($/yr)

Upgrade Facility Lighting

4,916 kWh/yr

4.7

$443

$783

1.8 years

Upgrade Facility Exit Signs

1,253 kWh/yr

1.2

$93

$320

3.4 years

Apply for Tax Exemption when Qualified

$5,745

$2,300

0.4 years

Reduce Air Leaks in the Distribution System

52,020 kWh/yr

22.2

$2,953

$600

0.2 years

Install VFD on Compressed Air System

147,540 kWh/yr

62.9

$12,629

$11,440

0.9 years

Replace V-Belts with Cogged V-Belts

3,424 kWh/yr

1.5

$274

$1,558

5.7 years

Using Cool Air Intake for Compressor

8,010 kWh/yr

3.4

$481

$1,785

3.7 years

Totals

217,163 kWh/yr

95.9

$22,618

$18,786

0.8 years