4 FM quick reads on energy efficiency
1. Making Demand-Response Work
I'm Dan Hounsell, editor of Maintenance Solutions magazine. Today's topic is, making demand response work.
To successfully participate in what they hoped would be a lucrative demand-response program, facility managers with Allegheny County, Pa., understood their commitment went far beyond simply shedding energy load.
A successful program meant Philip La May, the county's deputy director of public works, and Jeaneen Zappa, its sustainability manager, would have to overcome resistance. To do so, La May and Zappa had to shift the culture of the county.
"Conservation includes behavior change and taking advantage of every opportunity we have to be part of a larger solution for the community," Zappa says. "We have an obligation to set the right example. It behooves us as a government in particular to say, 'This is how we can do this.' And, of course, there is a financial benefit to it."
La May is working to ensure the resistance does not deter his staff from contributing to the county's sustainability efforts.
"It's moving away from what we're used to toward what we hope to be the new norm," he says. "It means our employees learn about new equipment, new materials and new processes. In that process, we end up, hopefully, training a new normal."
To realize the energy and cost savings demand-response programs are designed to generate, employees in all departments had to get on board. The county conducted its first test demand-response event in August 2010. It resulted in about $300,000 for the county — a combination of the payment for participating in the program and the utility cost savings from the reduction in kilowatt-hours (kWh).
For buildings participating in the program, the county and its energy-consulting load aggregator, Comverge, identified critical staff responsible for ensuring occupants understand the way operations will change during the demand-response event, as well as the role they play in helping shed load.
"It took a lot of coordination to make sure that stationary engineers and electricians had input as to the best way to shut things down and how to approach the building occupants," La May says. "Short of doing our dry run, we tried to plan it out as best as possible, making sure we have the staff available throughout facilities to be accessible to building occupants with questions about what they need to do."
How to Customize Sub-Metering Systems
This is Chris Matt, Managing Editor of Print & E-Media with Maintenance Solutions magazine. Today's tip is customizing sub-metering systems.
Each facility produces a unique energy-load profile with specific circuits and systems that would be advantageous to monitor. Managers should customize sub-metering systems to provide maximized benefits and flexibility for the facility. A well-designed sub-metering system also allows for future scalability to meet changing energy use and demand needs.
The advantage of sub-meters is that managers can install them easily in both new and existing facilities. They are much lower in cost compared to most utility-scale master primary meters. An electrician typically can install a sub-meter in about three hours.
Managers also can easily integrate the meters into an electrical-distribution system without having to make major interior or equipment changes in the building. Installation is as easy as connecting current sensor clamps around each phase of electrical feeders and adding potential taps.
The average cost to buy and install a sub-meter and control wiring connected to a building-automation system is $1,500-$2,500 per control point. Managers also might consider additional funding measures from local utility companies.
To ensure effective installation, managers also can properly maintain the sub-meters by implementing initial commissioning and preventive maintenance plans.
Technicians should check communication gateways and networking to ensure each control wire in the system functions and interacts within the system properly. For new projects or retrofits, employ a commissioning agent for quality control and to ensure building meters and metered systems are designed, installed and calibrated to operate as intended. The unit should deliver data managers and technicians can access easily, possibly via the Internet or another web-based platform.
Considering The Energy To Make a Product in a Life-Cycle Assessment
Today's tip is about how to consider the energy required to make a product - otherwise known as its embodied energy - in an environmental life-cycle assessment.
These days, facility managers are considering more than just how products perform after they're installed in their buildings. To accurately calculate the Scope 3 emissions - or indirect emissions in the sort of miscellaneous category - facility managers need to know the embodied energy of the products they put in their buildings.
The most systematic way to do that is by conducting an environmental life-cycle assessment for all products that are installed in a building. This means looking at every phase of a product - from how it is manufactured, to its useful life in the facility, to what happens to the product when it's useful life is over.
Embodied energy is a key tenet of this environmental life-cycle assessment. Embodied energy is the energy required from a product's raw material extraction, through its manufacturing process, to its delivery and installation in a building. Products in the same class with lower embodied energy signify that those manufacturers have themselves committed to being energy efficient in their processes, thus reducing the product's footprint on the environment. Often times, building products with lower embodied energies are also less expensive, because the manufacturer's energy waste isn't being tacked on to the price of the product. So it's a win-win: A similar quality product that required less energy to produce and at a lesser cost.
An important caveat, however, is that facility managers must examine all aspects of a product's life cycle and weigh the different pwerformance criteria against each other. It'd be hard to argue that a product with a low embodied energy that only lasts for five years and must be replaced is more environmentally responsible than one with a bit higher embodied energy that lasts for 50.