1 / 15

Energy Saving Devices

Energy Saving Devices. Are they Cost-Effective? Brad Pittler & Patrick Sims. The Customer. Southern Methodist University University with roughly 10,000 students Michael Vangelli Campus Planning and Plant Operations Electrical Engineer.

cmarrero
Download Presentation

Energy Saving Devices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Energy Saving Devices Are they Cost-Effective? Brad Pittler & Patrick Sims

  2. The Customer • Southern Methodist University • University with roughly 10,000 students • Michael Vangelli • Campus Planning and Plant Operations • Electrical Engineer

  3. Collect data regarding study room, rest room, and copy room usage. Gather information regarding energy efficient devices Compare installation costs of energy saving devices to what they would save over a period of time Issues to be Resolved

  4. Automatic Using “Intellitimer” Device Using Circulation records from libraries Using sign-out sheets Manual Counting people entering and exiting rooms Using anecdotal evidence when available Method of Data Collection

  5. Data Analysis Objective • To gather sufficient data to: • Develop a mean for each type of room • Develop a picture for room usage over a period of time • Develop a representative basis for recommendation

  6. Problem Development • Data collected formed a cost/benefit problem (with the following assumptions): • The data collected was representative of the norm • The costs would be static, and labor would be ignored • Inconvenience of installation had no cost

  7. Goals were to calculate energy-cost savings for two different types of energy saving devices. Calculating the time until the device pays for itself in energy savings Model Development • Implemented into the model three factors: • Data Gathered on Occupancy • Cost of Energy per kWh • Average Energy used per room (in kWh.)

  8. The Model • Annual Savings Model (Percent of time unoccupied) X (Cost of energy) X (Energy used per room) X (16 hours) X (350 days) This will calculate total energy savings.

  9. The Model (Cont.) • The Payback Period T = Unit Cost / Annual Savings This will calculate how long the unit will take to “pay for itself” via energy savings.

  10. Choosing the Devices • Gather information on options used for energy savings • Contact other organizations to learn about their choices • Learn about drawbacks and costs to install the devices

  11. The Contenders • Leviton develops devices that use both IR and Ultrasonic to detect occupancy • WattStopper offers devices using either IR or Ultrasonic to detect occupancy

  12. Drawbacks and Positives

  13. The Contenders (Cont.)

  14. Numerical Findings

  15. In two of the three cases, installation of either device would have a payback period of less than two years. Both devices had positive and negative points. The decision would be made on choice between cost and convenience. Further study of room usage patterns could contribute to better choices. Conclusions

More Related