The Cross Section, Volume 26, Number 6, June 1980 Page: 1
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas State Publications and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
AGRICULTURAL
fr Irl
INO us rRIAL
k
74
loe
r.r. .... ..... ..w. ..w ..... ,.. .k ........, wr r... ' ..mow
, . ....... .rte. _ ,.... .... . wrw kr,r. _ _ ........ r.ww.. .-,- ..w
r-00. r r.rr wa r .... .. ..... - P.a ,. .- rrww ..... ., ._ .. .... . . .... ,y... ,w
" wr .I.w .r..... . ....e. w..w -.+ ,rw." r.wr . .....rww n wwir - .. -
M +rlw Www r"ww rw.r nwwr ww....w _ - - - ...-, w _rr Iwrrr wrw ...wrr t - -
wwr rrr w.. .wo w ...... w..w ww _ _ - .,.. rrw ..r.,.Mw . w.r. wwr_..,.w,. .... .. . . .... _ .._.
w.w TMwwIwwWM,WM MwrhM.. ... ..., rrr. .._...... . .... ..... ... .. .++Mrr N.wwr wwxwr. Mww.w..r. . . .. -wrnw MlwwwMwrMww ....rr r r ... .-. .. .,.. __ ...
YMI Mew +wnr r wwM wwr .-. _r w..+" ..... .. -- w+rw. Iwwu w..+... +wwww - -w.. . r wNlw. . ...-n. r ..i.-. ...... ... ...w ..-. .. _Published monthly by High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, 2930 Avenue Q, Lu
Volume 26--No. 6 Publication number USPS 564-920, Second Class Postage paid at Lubbc
Cut Your Pump Plant
Input To Lower CostYou got your pre-plant irrigation
energy bill and you're still in a state
of shock. More bad news may be in
store as energy suppliers are indicating
that we can expect prices to continue
pryamiding, up by 80 percent during
the next two years on electricity, and
by about 30 percent annually on
natural gas. Consequently, your future
energy bills may be even more
shocking.
Now the good news. You don't
necessarily have to live with the high
cost of energy consumption. There is
something you can do to cut your
expenses and reduce your energy or
fuel costs, dramatically in some cases.
That something is to improve the
efficiency of your pumping plant.
Results of the first batch of pump
plant efficiency tests conducted in May
and June by the High Plains Water Dis-
trict with partial funding by the Texas
Energy and Natural Resources Advisory
Council, indicate that there are tremen-
dous opportunities to upgrade pump-
ing unit efficiencies and realize sub-
stantial dollar savings. They also indi-
cate that the potential savings in fuel
costs (at TODAYS rates) normally will
justify the cost of making adjustments,
repairs or replacements IF you can get
your pumping efficiency up to about
70 percent.
The example of pump efficiency
figures in the table generally agrees
with data compiled by Leon New,
irrigation specialist and agricultural
engineer headquartered in Lubbock
with the Texas Agricultural Extension
Service. Leon has been working with
county extension agents in the HighPlains area for many
years testing wells C7
and conducting nu-
merous workshops on
irrigation pump plant
efficiencies. A Texas
Tech University study
testing a large sample
of pumps in the High
Plains several years
ago, pinpointed the
average pumping efficiency at about
41 percent. That is well below the
practical and achievable 70 percent
which irrigators could be getting.
While the small sampling of eight
efficiency test results presented here
does not claim to be a statistical repre-
sentation for the area, it should be a
graphic example to farmers of why
they can't afford to remain in the dark
about their overall pump plant efficien-
cies while an energy hobgoblin may
be eating away their profits.
The question is no longer whether
you can afford to make your pumping
plant more efficient; the question is,
"Can you afford not to?" "Low
efficiencies may be the product of
multiple causes, but the number one
problem we are seeing in these effi-
ciency tests is a mismatch in pump
selection-the wrong pump for the
job," says staff agriculturalist Ken
Carver.
A pump that was quite efficient
when installed may have a much lower
r a t i n g today if conditions have
changed. It may be the result of a
change in GPM or pumping lift or
both. It may be the lack of adequate
well testing and knowledge of theat about SIPHONING
below the YOUR
PROFITS,
10 percent PRFIS
a poorly
performing
pump plant
will rob
your pocket.
How does
your pump
M+check out?bbock, Texas 79405
ick, Texas June, 1980
McFARLAND-
"GONE FISHING"
By A. WAYNE WYATT
Manager HPUWCD #1
Tom McFarland announced his re-
tirement from the Texas Department
of Water Resources effective June 1,
1980. He began his professional career
in the water business in 1951 as Man-
ager of the High Plains Underground
W a t e r Conservation District, and
worked in this capacity to 1969, a
span of 18 years. Since then, Tom has
served in numerous capacities for state
government, all associated with water.
He served Governor Preston Smith as
a water advisor, worked at the Texas
Water Quality Board, and completed
his water career at the Texas Depart-
ment of Water Resources.EXAMPLES OF PUMP EFFICIENCY TESTS MADE IN MAY & JUNE 1980
Based on 2000 Hours of Operation at .4 cents per KWH
for Electricity or $2.50 per MCF for natural gas
Projected COST in Projected COST in Projected SAVINGS YIELD
TEST PUMP fuel annually at fuel annually at to upgrade pump POWER IN
NUMBER EFFICIENCY CURRENT efficiency 70% efficiency to 70% efficiency TYPE GPM1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
AVG.29.69
64.25
24.08
60.24
59.68
33.95
44.66
28.45
43.13$3830.00
5295.00
2637.80
7540.00
4285.70
691.71
770.70
2910.40
$3245.16$1624.47
4860.05
905.68
6488.70
3653.86
335.78
494.03
1182.87
$2443.18$2205.53
434.95
1727.12
1051.30
631.84
355.93
276.67
1727.52
$1051.36Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Electric
Electric
Natural Gas
Electric
Electric
Electric415
810
182
800
480
90
120
200well's characteristics that resulted in
incorrect pump selection. But every
pump has its limitations and they must
match the well for maximum perform-
ance. Installing a new pump bowl
assembly will often jump GPM and
efficiency output dramatically.
Another common mistake robbing
the irrigator of pump performance is
the use of a pump in a way in which
it was not designed. A growing num-
ber of irrigators are attempting to con-
vert their open discharge irrigation
systems to sprinklers without modify-
ing their pumps. The added load is
sapping energy efficiency. Each addi-
tional pound of pressure on the pump
is equal to adding 2.3 feet of lift.
Efficiencies are also hurt by improper
well construction, by poor operating
procedures and maintenance, or by
incorrect power unit selection. Power
unit efficiency does significantly affect
overall performance. Your engine's
efficiency may suffer from wear, poor
compression, lack of a tune up, or
improper sizing for the load. The
efficiency of electric motors is deter-
mined by design and size and is not
generally affected by hours of use.
Fossil fuel engine efficiencies, on the
other hand, do decline with hours of
use and need proper operation and
maintenance. Altitude will also affect
performance by three percent per
thousand feet, and temperature will
take its toll at one percent per ten
degrees ferenheit rise over 60 degrees.
A good power unit efficiency range is
90 to 95 percent for electric motors,
continued on page 4... PUMP PLANTSTOM McFARLAND
Tom's water career actually began
as an irrigation farmer. He was very
instrumental in writing and passing
laws which provided the legal mechan-
ism for creating and operating under-
ground water conservation districts in
Texas. When the law was passed, he
was serving as Manager of the Deaf
Smith County Chamber of Commerce.
In this capacity he helped hold public
meetings and spoke for the creation cf
the Water District. After the District
was created by popular vote in those
areas it serves, Tom was appointed to
serve on the original Board of Directors
of the District. The other Board mem-
bers persuaded him to accept the posi-
tion of its manager shortly after
creation.
continued from page 2... McFARLANDr MUNICIPAL
L L L LLL
LL t L `"
`--. LL L L
` t l L L L ~
L tit tI
L 4 L L L L L L L L L L
L L L LL LL
L4 1 Lii yL
` L L L. LLL L L L V
L
r" .r..". .... ,.rww. .w rw..
YY.wMr ..rw,,, e +.."..... +Hr
11u/
+ ..w.wr rwWrr
w ....r. r..u YYw MMK "MMIMF
..wn r w vwNMMr 4MWF
ryr.. ww..... r..r err .MY1r
wwww. s r.ur .rW MY MM
r"ww w"www" MMYIY Y MMMI1 w 111 Y.
" w www" rwn " r r /Y//ry/N y
. " .emn ...mr.. www"r rY YWYr
w_ T M'MW F 4MYYI1
rrwr -rr 1. W
A Y YJrr
rY rrW uuY"WY MIMH'I YwM" Ywwr rr ru..rr " wwwwn r. iYylrycheck out?
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (Tex.). The Cross Section, Volume 26, Number 6, June 1980, periodical, June 1980; Lubbock, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1533063/m1/1/?rotate=90: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.