3" is small enough I would be half tempted to have another well driven.
Some web pages that might give you ideas:
http://www.fdungan.com/well.htm
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/sucker_rod_pump/sucker_rod_pump.html
http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/06/seven-letters-re-advice-on-dee.html
Energy useage - the only energy you might save is in the inefficiencies of the
system being reduced or new energy you bring to the table.
The extra 12' lift is nothing worth worrying about.
If the pressure tank is a bladder tank or one that uses a compressor to inject
air, it is a lot larger than what I am used to, but one is essential to even out
the pressure from a pump and that size tank for a two family setup is likely
correct, since about 1/2 of it is air. Removing it or making it open would not
be a good thing.
What you could do is purchase one or more food grade 275 gal shipping container
(+-$100 used) and convert the well over to a sucker pump or whatever you decide
you want.
As a comparison - I push water up 100' from a creek to an 1100 gal cistern. It
requires a couple of ganged pumps and some time. 10 amps x 120 volts x 7 hours
for 500 gallons works out to about $1 at our electric rates. I fill about five
times per month, so pay about $5. However, I go through a $40 pump about once a
year, so water is a $100/year cost before it gets to the pressure pump under the
house. Neighbors pay $25/month for municipal water, so I'm $200/year ahead and
don't have to worry about fee increases.
I'd bet that your current costs are on a par with mine, even with two families.
Have you stuck a meter on the line to the pump or a flow meter on the system
output?
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:08:47 -0500, Derald <
der...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>The 20' suction is right at the upper limit because of atmosphere pressure. If
>>you want the pump on the surface, a jet pump is the usual way to go. I have one
>>on a well. It pushes water down a small pipe which then goes through a 180
>>angle and an eductor (pointy nozzle) and uses B's principle to force up more
>>water than was used in a larger pipe, in the jet stream. Problem is that it
>>does take some power and a pressure tank is needed. It also needs a good foot
>>valve.
> Ah, but you don't know the rest of the story. It's a 3" well,
>which should give you some idea how long the casing's been in the
>ground. 3" two-pipe extractors are inordinately expensive and, while it
>would resolve the static pressure, volume would not improve and I'd
>still be paying the electric co-op far more than I care to for its
>participation. Compounded by a 12' pressure lift into a 1250-gal
>vertical buffer/storage tank that is in series and pressurized. No, I
>didn't do any of that and the storage tank was installed vertically over
>my objections. I had considered a packer but I don't even know if 3"
>packers exist or, if they do, can be retrofitted. I've never seen one
>smaller than 6" and they all, 100%, eventually blow out. With a casing
>that old, I'm not sure I'd take the risk.
> My thought is to check off the large tank, open it to the
>atmosphere, use a low-power float-controlled pump to keep it filled and
>the existing half-horse shallow well pump to maintain service pressure
>and volume, reducing its power requirements significantly.
> The well serves two, two-person households and my drip irrigation
>system. Highest volume demands are laundry and showers, although, it is
>nice to be able to open a valve to a good high pressure stream.
> Ideally, I could simply use the existing drop pipe and foot valve
>but that works best with an open tank, which this one is not. The
>"ultimate" solution might be a submerged piston pump but, as you point
>out, low-voltage submersibles are expensive and would complicate, and
>possibly eliminate the use of of direct wind power, when available.
>Also, laying that damned stock tank down horizontally would eliminate
>some unnecessary (to my mind) pressure lift—reducing power requirements
>somewhat—but I might have to win a fight before being able to accomplish
>that.
> Prefer home-brew because keeping as much cash in my pocket as
>possible is highly desirable. I haven't sounded the well since 1996 so
>don't even know whether a simple PVC piston pump at the well head might
>be practical. I could easily set one on top of the existing drop pipe
>and use the existing foot valve as one of the checks. I have only begun
>to investigate possible solutions. At any rate, I won't begin seriously
>attacking the project until the installation of a '84 300 I-6 into a '96
>4WD F-150 chassis, a work in progress, is complete. Lordy, will I be
>glad to get rid of all of that high-maintenance plastic electronic
>crap....