Advancing the Last Frontier: Reduction of commercial plug loads

ADVANCING THE LAST FRONTIER- REDUCTION OF COMMERCIAL

PLUG LOADS

Scott Hackel, SeventhwaveChris Plum, Center for Energy and the Environment

Rick Carter, LHB, Inc.

2016 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings

REDUCTION OF COMMERCIAL PLUG LOADS

OUR PROJECT APPROACH

Characterize: 35 officesIndividually measure: 8 offices, 700+ pointsTest strategies: 5 strategiesGauge satisfaction: 290+ users


WORKSTATION MONITORING

Workstation logger

CPU logger


PLUG LOAD INVENTORIES

Self-reported(N=34 offices)

Field observations(N=8)

Average Range Average Range

Area per person (ft2) 280 170 - 600 230 198 - 273

Desktop/workstation 0.65 0 - 1.4 0.49 0 - 1.20

Laptop/workstation 0.43 0 - 1 0.56 0 - 1.00

Monitor/workstation 1.32 0.2 - 2.4 1.58 1 - 2.60

Task Light/workstation 0.80 0 - 2.6 0.68 0 - 1.40

All other 1.40 0 - 4.8 0.97 0 - 4.00

Total Plug Devices 4.6 1-10.4 4.3 1-11Phone/workstation 1.00 0.6 - 1.8 0.98 0.80 - 1.03

5

OFFICE INVENTORY (COMMON SPACES)Equipment Type Total Number

ObservedSites with 1 or more

(out of 8)Desktop Printer 27 6Multi-functional Device/copier 22 8Microwave 21 7Flatscreen tv/digital display 18 6Coffeemaker 16 7Refrigerator 14 7Voice conferencing equipment 10 4Mini-fridge 7 4Electric stapler 7 4Floor based printer 6 3Toaster 6 5Shredder 6 3Projector 6 3


PLUG LOAD REDUCTION STRATEGIES

CRED

IT: T

rickl

esta

r

APS – Occupancy sensorAPS – Foot pedalBasic timerComputer power managementBehavior campaign


BEHAVIOR CHANGE CAMPAIGN

CREDIT: LHB Architects


ENERGY IMPACTS


ENERGY IMPACTS

Annual energy savings

kWh per station

% (with 95% conf. int.) N

Occupancy sensor 67 21.7% ± 14% 95Computer power management 106 29.1% ± 18% 116Foot pedal 42 19.0% ± 13% 74Foot pedal + behavior campaign 70 22.4% ± 13% 48


ENERGY IMPACTS

Telev

isions

Desktop prin

ters

Medium-siz

ed M

FDs

Coffeemak

ers

Water c

oolers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140An

nual

Sav

ings

(kW

h)


IMPACT OF BEHAVIORAL ELEMENTS

City public works APS savings alone:

…. with behavior campaign:

Engineering APS savings alone:

… with behavior campaign:34 kWh

49 kWh 57 kWh

84 kWh


PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK


PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK

Advanced power strips, by site• No major productivity issues• Lowest “acceptance” rate 69%

Computer power mgmt., by site• Technology disrupted

productivity for some specific user types

• Sites without technical issues had high acceptance rates: >77%


LESSONS FROM THE FIELDComputer power management was initially resisted at most sites.

• Upside: an energy champion• Downside: incompatible software

Even “foolproof” equipment can be misused• Upside: 90% of users had no issues• Downside: some users inadvertently caused

malfunction

Users don’t always plug equipment back in the same outlet• Upside: majority of plugs were never touched• Downside: issue primarily occurred with laptops


KEY TAKEAWAYS

• We see evidence of loads moving away from the workstation, but significant load remains.

• Tier 2 APS work well.

• Computer power management works even better, but…

• There’s value in discussing behavior.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was supported in part by a grant from the Minnesota Department of Commerce through the Conservation Applied Research and Development (CARD) program.

Questions?

Scott [email protected]

Chris [email protected]

Rick [email protected]

Advancing the Last Frontier: Reduction of commercial plug loads

Presentations & Public Speaking

Transcript of Advancing the Last Frontier: Reduction of commercial plug loads