Page 1

1. ALLIANCE MICROELECTRONICS WORKSHOPLBNL RESEARCH UPDATE Bill Tschudi wftschudi@lbl.gov Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Sponsored by: Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)California Energy Commission and administered by California Institute for Energy Efficiency (CIEE) 9-16-04 Page 1

2. Overview Energy Intensive High-tech Buildings 2

3. Overview Update of Current Activities Cleanroom Activities • Benchmarking and Best Practices • Demand Controlled Filtration • Fan-Filter Test Procedure • Mini-Environments 3

4. Overview Current Activities, cont. Laboratory Activities • Benchmarking and Best Practices • Berkeley Fume Hood Development • Overcoming Barriers (CAL/OSHA) • Side-by-Side Testing • 3 Industrial Demonstrations • Labs 21 4

5. Overview Current Activities, cont. Data Center Activities • Benchmarking and Best Practices • Load intensity • Performance Benchmarks • Self-benchmarking Protocol • Investigate UPS Efficiency Improvement • Investigate Power Supply Improvement 5

6. Overview Current Activities, cont. Demonstration Projects LBNL role is to identify and scope possible demonstrations and arrange industry partners Technology Transfer Interaction with industry, e.g.: • ASHRAE • SEMATECH • IEST • Cleanrooms East/West • Public utilities – emerging technology 6

7. Benchmarking Cleanroom Benchmarking Expanding the Database • 4-6 New Case Studies • Compare to Sematech Data • Adding Data on UPS and Standby Generation 7

8. Benchmarking Recirculation Air Systems LBNL Data Average 3440 Sematech Data Average 1953 8

9. Benchmarking Baselines Based Upon Benchmark Data System Performance Target 9

10. Benchmarking Make-up Air Systems LBNL Data Average 972 Sematech Data Average 946 10

11. Benchmarking Cleanroom Benchmarking Air Change Rates 11

12. Benchmarking Standby Generation Loss • Several Sources • Heaters • Battery chargers • Transfer switches • Fuel management systems • Heaters alone (many operation hours) use more electricity than produced by the generator (few operating hours) • May be possible to eliminate heaters, batteries, and chargers 12

13. Benchmarking Case Study Recent case study demonstrated recirculation setback 13

14. Benchmarking Recirculation Setback Based Solely on Time clock, 8:00 PM -6:00 AM setback No reported process problems or pushback 60% – 70% Power Reduction on turndown

15. Benchmarking Recirculation Setback - Savings Annual Fan Savings from Daily and Weekend Setback: 1,000,000 kWh$130,000 - $150,000 Cooling load reduction when setback: 120 kW35 tons

16. Benchmarking Additional Savings Opportunities • Currently using air cooled chiller at 1 kW/ton, partially to conserve water. The RO system rejects 2,500 – 4,000 gallons per day to sewer; RO reject water can be used for tower makeup. • Space humidity control exceeded design and process requirements in most spaces; energy intensive dehumidification/reheat could be reduced by resetting humidity setpoints to design. • Actively control recirculation setback for further fan savings. • Reduce air change rates further.

17. Demand Controlled Filtration • Controlling Air Flow to • Maintain Cleanliness • Save energy by reducing fan speeds without degrading conditions in cleanroom • Reduction of recirculation fan speed during unoccupied periods or periods of no activity (potential for minienvironments also) • Demand filtration based on real-time particle concentration measurements • Fan power proportional to the cube of the flow rate, so small changes can result in large savings 17

18. Demand Controlled Filtration Demand Controlled Filtration • Pilot study completed - showing promise • Collaboration with Cornell University • Informal survey of ASHRAE TC 9.11 members regarding control of recirculation fan speed • Many members said that they use some form of demand controlled filtration now • Some have set backs during unoccupied periods • Manual override is provided • Demonstration partner identified • Tool Manufacturer 18

19. Demand Controlled Filtration • Pilot Study • ISOClass 5 cleanroom at LBNL – monitored particle concentrations • Three particle sensors – controlling to various size particles • Varied flow rate by controlling recirculation fan speed • Room Pressurization not studied 19

20. FFU Test Procedure Fan-Filter Unit Testing 20

21. FFU Test Procedure FFU Goals • Develop a standard way to test and report performance of Fan-Filter Units (FFUs) • Promote FFU energy efficiency through use of the standard 21

22. FFU Test Procedure Test Procedure Development • A team of experts provided peer-reviews of the draft standard procedure prepared by LBNL • Project Advisors • ITRI/AMCA • FFU Manufacturers • End-users • Sematech 22

23. FFU Test Procedure On-going Development • LBNL continues to work with IEST to provide assistance to its more comprehensive recommended Practice (RP) which will include testing for other characteristics such as vibration and noise. • Any input to the draft standard will be appreciated. 23

24. FFU Test Procedure Planned FFU Activities • Test Procedure will be “tested” at PG&E’s lab facility for small number of units • Additional units to be tested depending upon funding available • ITRI (Taiwan) test data may be useful • PG&E intends to establish baselines based upon tests and use the baselines in incentive programs. Other California public utilities can also use the baselines that PG&E develops. 24

25. Minienvironments Minienvironment Tasks • Understand the energy implications of using minienvironments – micro and macro level • Case study on minienvironment performance – Asyst Technologies • Work with IEST on Recommended Practice for minienvironments • Identify and promote energy efficiency opportunities 25

26. minienvironments Planned Minienvironment Activities • Develop strategies to improve efficiency based upon case study findings and other best practices input. Consider input from: • NEEA workshop attendees • IEST • Sematech • Suppliers/Users/Utility • A2C2/Cleanroom Magazines • Host a workshop on minienvironment efficiency 26

27. Data Centers Data Center Benchmarking Both LBNL and Uptime Institute found average IT equipment loading at ~25 W/ft2 27

28. Data Centers Data Center Benchmarking 28

29. Power Supplies Power Supplies in IT Equipment 29

30. Power Supplies Power Supplies in IT Equipment 30

31. Power Supplies Power Supply Efficiency • Developed loading guidelines and test protocol for testing AC/DC power supplies for 1U, 2U and pedestal servers. • Calculation tool for evaluating impact of improving power conversion process efficiency at rack level. • Coordination with Server System Infrastructure (SSI) members to adopt loading guidelines and recommend higher efficiency levels for server power supplies. • Evaluate “real life” server PS loading level and processor usage activity for servers. 31

32. Power Supplies Power Supply Efficiency …does not relate to very low power consumption Very Low Processor Activity… Most of the time the GHz processor is doing activities that can be done by a MHz processor but the input power consumption is not changing much 32

33. UPS Systems UPS System Benchmarking 33

34. UPS Systems UPS Measured Performance Sample of 12 field measurements. 34

35. UPS Systems Measuring UPS efficiency to show impact of “high efficiency” option. Measured Result Manufacturer Spec On average, existing high efficiency modes can make a 4 to 5 % difference in UPS efficiency. 35

36. UPS Systems Analyzing UPS performance in “high efficiency” option. In “high efficiency” mode, there can be one cycle (16.6 msec for 60 Hz) of voltage deviation on the output of the UPS. Power supplies downstream of the UPS can ride through this. 36

37. UPS Systems Labeling Efficiency and Reliability • Data collection protocol. • Technical review of efficiency versus load (based on specification) for current generation static and inertial UPS. • Simplified calculation tools for comparing AC powering versus DC powering and evaluation of cost savings for higher efficiency UPS. • Testing of UPS to show impact of “high efficiency” option on static UPS • Coordinating with International labeling effort for quality & efficiency. Possible UPS Efficiency Labeling Criteria 37

38. Demonstrations LBNL’s role • Scoping demonstrations of technologies or strategies to improve energy efficiency in high- tech buildings • Showcase New/Emerging or Under-utilized Technologies or Approaches 38

39. Demonstrations Possible Demonstrations • Follow-on from current research tasks: • Demand controlled filtration • Minienvironment efficiency improvement • Fan-filter test procedure • Fume hood demonstrations currently are proceeding 39

40. Demonstrations • Additional potential demonstrations for Cleanroom/Lab/Data Centers: • Airflow visualization via helium bubbles • Combined Heat and Power • UPS efficiency improvement • Energy efficient vacuum pumps 40

41. Technology Transfer LBNL portal Website: http://hightech.lbl.gov

42. Thank youQuestions? 9-16-04 Page 42