Boston College Vending Machine
Energy Audit Project Report
GE580 Environmental Seminar
Professor Tara Gareau-Pisani
May 1st, 2014
Lindsey Hoyem
Nathan Lawlor
Taylor McEldowney
Laura Schaffer
Introduction
The presence of vending machines on Boston College’s campuses provides students,
staff, and visitors to the university with the ability to purchase a variety of beverage and snack
options at many convenient locations around its campuses. Boston College (BC) has vending
machine contracts with two vendors to supply these products. The Coca-Cola Company is
contracted to provide soft drinks, energy drinks (Powerade), and water (Dasani) while Next
Generation Vending and Food Services, Inc (Next Generation) is contracted to provide a variety
of snack options. The 146 vending machines that are currently in operation at BC are located
across Main Campus, Brighton Campus, and Newton Campus. Of these 146 machines, 101 are
beverage machines provided by Coca-Cola and 45 are snack machines provided by Next
Generation (see Appendix A).
Vending machines have been used for many centuries to provide a convenient way to buy
and sell goods. Portable coin-operated vending machines were first used in England in the 17th
century to dispense tobacco, newspapers, and stamps. Towards the end of the 19th century,
vending machines were built in the United States to sell gum and candy products (Segrave,
2002). Today, vending machines have become commonplace at many institutions in America,
with many consumers taking their presence for granted. Major vendors have sought contracts
with universities because of the high concentration of consumers on their campuses and the high
demand for quick and convenient food and beverage options.
Having vending machines on campus offers many benefits to the BC community. Drink
and snack vending machines are located in most lounges, dining halls, academic buildings, and
libraries on its campuses. The prevalence of these machines allows consumers to have access to
food and drink options at all hours of the day. As 19 of 29 residence halls on campus have no
kitchen access the availability of vending machines provides an essential service for those
students on the university meal plan who want food choices outside of dining hall hours
(“Residence Hall Association”, 2014).
Though the presence of vending machines provides a valuable service to the BC
community, their use also contributes significantly to the total annual energy usage of the
university. We calculated that BC’s average annual energy cost for all operational vending
machines is $15,529.52 (see Appendix C). In addition to raising annual energy costs for BC, this
high energy use negatively contributes to BC’s carbon footprint and the university’s efforts to
1 increase sustainability. We calculated that the use of vending machines at BC contributes 119.41
tons of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere per year (see Appendix C).
This substantial energy use and CO2 emissions at BC stems from the fact that vending
machines are extremely energy intensive appliances that often utilize power constantly
throughout the day. Though the vending machines are the property of the vendors (The CocaCola Company or Next Generation), and are provided by each vendor at no cost to the university,
BC is responsible for paying the utility bill generated by their electrical use (Karamourtopoulos,
2014). All vending machines across campus are required to be on at all times to provide
continuous access to their products for the university community and to keep the card readers
installed on the machines working properly. If any vending machine is powered down the card
reader may lose an internet connection which will require manual labor to restore the
functionality of the reader. The amount of energy used by a particular vending machine varies by
a number of factors including the model, lighting and refrigeration settings, card reader usage,
insulation quality, and other internal mechanisms. Vending machines at BC are not standardized.
Across all of BC’s campuses, there are 12 different vending machine models in use, of which 3
are ENERGY STARTM (energy star) certified (see Appendix D: Table 1). These 3 models
constitute 48% of vending machines on campus (see Appendix D: Figure 1). In addition, vending
machines of the same model may vary by the type of lighting they use or through retrofitted
devices. In order to reduce the energy use of vending machines at BC there are multiple methods
that the energy management team and the vendors can employ. For this project, our team has
focused on the most feasible and cost-effective changes that BC can make to reduce vending
machine energy usage.
To conduct our study we used a variety of methods to evaluate energy efficiency
alternatives that could be incorporated at BC. As a general overview, this entailed conducting
external research on existing alternatives, collecting data through testing machines, having
conversations with vendor representatives, field documentation, and data analysis including
evaluating the cost-benefits of each energy efficiency alternative.
2 Project Proposal and Rationale
Through this energy audit and research study, our team sought to examine the energy
intensiveness of the existing vending machines on BC’s campuses and evaluate all possible
methods to decrease their energy use and cost to the university. We chose to investigate this
topic because the energy usage of vending machines at BC had not been previously determined,
and we suspected that due to their high energy intensity and prevalence around campus, vending
machines contributed substantially to the overall energy usage of the university. In its mission
statement, the Boston College Office of Sustainability declares “the university is committed to
conserving resources and reducing the impact that its services and activities place on the
environment” (“Sustainability at Boston College”, 2014). Because “electricity represents the
majority of the utility use at Boston College” (Ibid) the efforts of the university to achieve
sustainability have been concentrated in this sector. Some past projects that have been
undertaken by the university to decrease energy use include switching all refrigerators on lower
campus to energy star certified appliances and converting lighting in many campus buildings to
LED light bulbs (Ibid). However, prior to our vending machine energy audit, BC had not made
any significant efforts towards analyzing or reducing the energy usage of vending machines.
Therefore, addressing the energy usage of vending machines across campus would offer many
financial and environmental benefits to the BC community as well as contribute to the fulfillment
of the BC Office of Sustainability’s goals. From our research and data collection we intended to
propose informed recommendations to the BC Facilities Management Department to improve the
energy efficiency of the vending machines on campus and reduce overall energy costs. We also
hoped to contribute the the university’s efforts towards sustainability.
As a team, we met with the BC Energy Manager John MacDonald, the BC Vending
Relations Specialist Paul Karamourtopoulos, and contacted representatives from the Coca-Cola
Company and Next Generation. After meeting with these representatives, we determined the
options for energy reduction that would be most feasible and cost effective for the BC
community and structured our project accordingly. Throughout our project we chose to evaluate
the following methods: changing fluorescent lights to light emitting diode (LED) lights,
installing supplemental energy conservation devices (Vending Miser), de-lamping the machines,
and adding compressor controls.
3 Another priority of our project was to determine if all vending machines across BC’s
campuses were energy star certified. Energy star vending machines are 50% more energy
efficient than standard vending machine models, yet provide the same quality of lighting and
refrigeration by incorporating more efficient compressors, fan motors, and lighting systems
(“Vending Machines for Consumers”, 2014). Thus, it would be very beneficial to ensure that at
least most of the machines are energy star certified. We were not able to calculate the exact cost
that would be required to update BC’s vending machines to energy star certification due to
limitations in company policies on releasing this data, however, from our research we are
confident that such changes would yield significant benefits.
We also aimed to map the locations of all snack and beverage vending machines across
BC’s campuses to gain a better understanding of the distribution of machines and the volume of
machines in particular areas. BC vending services, in conjunction with Coca-Cola and Next
Generation, controls the location and number of machines to be placed on campus. Our original
goal was to calculate the cost-benefits of removing machines from areas of high volume,
however, it was determined that such a change would be a corporate decision of which we had
little influence over. Although this is something we could not look further into, we were still able
to analyze many different solutions that were determined to be more feasible, as mentioned
above, and from this analysis were able to make recommendations to BC.
Methods
As previously stated in our proposal, we evaluated the most economical and
environmentally beneficial ways to improve energy efficiency in relation to the vending
machines on BC’s campuses. We used multiple methods and analyses to create a holistic
evaluation of the most effective way to assess the energy usage of the university’s vending
machines. With this in mind, we performed our own research, collected data, and analyzed our
results to reach a conclusion and recommendation for the vending machine representatives at
BC, Next Generation, and the Coca-Cola Company.
With the assistance of representatives from Coca-Cola and Next Generation, as well as
employees from BC who work directly with the vending machines we extensively researched the
existing vending machines on campus. Our team met multiple times with these representatives to
learn about the logistics about these vending machines to gain a better understanding of how they
4 operate. While working with these representatives we were able to identify and research details
regarding the energy usage of every machine available on campus. We visited every machine on
BC’s campuses and recorded its model number, if it had LED lighting, a card reader, was energy
star certified, and any other information that seemed relevant about that individual machine. This
helped us to understand the full vending machine spectrum at BC and gave us the foundation for
understanding the restraints and focus of our project. We also conducted our own research
involving external sources such as articles and case studies. These resources were instrumental in
providing a model for how to create our cost benefit analysis and understand best practices. In
addition to this research, we compared the results of our investigation with those of other
colleges in Boston using information gathered from articles and studies that investigated vending
machine energy efficiency in these institutions. Through all of our external research, we found
that many other schools had conducted similar audits of their vending machines’ energy usage
and had investigated and documented numerous retrofitting strategies. This was very helpful for
us in determining what data to collect and what different energy saving options we should study.
After collecting the data from the representatives, investigating the individual machines and
researching case studies and articles, we conducted our own data collection on the energy usage
of the vending machines.
We measured the energy output of both Next Generation and Coca-Cola machines with a
Kill-a-Watt meter. We collected energy usage data with this mechanism from 4 of the most
common vending machines models on campus, models RVCC804, RVCC660, National 167, and
National 181 with the help of several representatives from BC. The Kill-a-Watt meters provided
the wattage for each machine, which we converted to kilowatts by dividing by 1000. Often the
wattage cycled between several different numbers because of lights that would flash on and off,
so we used the average of these numbers. With this sample, we were able to estimate the energy
usage of the 146 vending machines located across Main, Brighton, and Newton Campus. We
calculated the cost savings for each of the energy solutions. Using these numbers we compared
our new cost savings data to the original energy output of the BC vending machines.
Below are the calculations for electrical costs and carbon dioxide emissions from
operating the vending machines each year. We used these formulas to analyze the energy
efficiency of the vending machines and calculate the savings from new, more energy efficient
methods.
5 Total cost per vending machine per year:
( kWh/machine/day) * ($/kWh) * (365 days/1 year) = $/year/machine
Total cost of all vending machines each year:
($/year/machine) * (# machines) = $/year
Total CO2 emitted per vending machine per year:
((kwh/machine/day) * (365 days/1 year) * (CO2/kWh)) / 2000 = CO2 tons/year/machine
Total CO2 of all vending machines each year:
CO2 tons/year/machine * (# machines) = CO2 tons/year
We estimated the energy and cost savings from the retrofitting strategies that we
investigated from external research and also utilized the above calculations. We were not able to
test the retrofitting options ourselves because of BC’s vending policies, so we estimated the
savings for each strategy, usually in the form of a percentage saved, from numerous case studies
and articles that discussed similar vending machine energy audits and savings methods.
In testing the energy output of the vending machines we used the measurement of overall
energy output, capturing the energy usage of the lightbulbs in all machines and the energy
output of the refrigeration systems in the beverage vending machines. After examining the four
vending machines, as mentioned above, we were able to project savings BC would incur if all
vending machines were retrofitted with the different energy efficient solutions, which is outlined
in more detail in our results.
Specifically, we recorded the data in Excel spreadsheets and represented the data in
graphs to clearly present the cost-benefit analysis of the different strategies investigated. Our
goal was to place a metric on the economic and environmental impact of the vending machines
to actualize the energy cost savings as well as carbon dioxide savings. After compiling each
separate method and comparing our critical data collection, analysis, and research, we found a
holistic solution and concluded with a recommendation that benefitted the vending machine
companies, BC, and its consumers.
6 External Research
An aspect of this investigation involved comparing the vending machine energy
efficiency status of BC to that of other universities and institutions across the Greater Boston
Area. Research literature about the vending machine energy efficiency status at Harvard
University, Tufts University, and State University of New York (SUNY) were compiled and
analyzed to determine the most efficient energy reduction strategies and the savings that resulted
from these strategies. A study at Harvard University reported significant energy savings in 2002
by implementing a supplemental energy efficiency device called the Vending Miser. The
Vending Miser is an energy conservation device that utilizes motion sensor technology to
minimize the energy usage of a vending machine. Specifically, the device is plugged into a
power source and then connected to the vending machine. In addition, the device has an external
EnergyMiser Controller that is permanently mounted on a nearby wall. Lastly, an Occupancy
Sensor is connected to this Controller to detect the consumer traffic patterns and determine
whether to power the machine on or off (“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products,” 2014).
Ultimately, if the sensor does not detect any motion for 15 minutes, the Vending Miser device
shuts off the machine’s compressor, lights, and other electronics (Powell, 2002). These devices
are typically priced around $189 and are estimated to reduce total vending machine energy costs
by 46% if the machine is not energy star certified and by 19% if the machine is energy star
certified (“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products,” 2014). From the Harvard study, the
researchers determined that their average beverage vending machine each used about 3,468 kWh
of energy annually. With the implementation of the Vending Miser, the university was able to
cut energy consumption in half. Additionally, after a year of using the Vending Miser, the
university saved a total of $200,000 in electricity use. A great majority of these savings resulted
from the device turning off the vending machines during the weekends when there were periods
of great consumer inactivity (Powell, 2002). However, it should be noted that these savings in
2002 were so large because these vending machines are not as energy efficient as the modern
models.
Similarly, Tufts University conducted a study where their researchers measured the
energy output of beverage vending machines before and after the installation of Vending Miser
devices. With the added Vending Miser devices, weekly electricity usage was reduced from
66.71 kWh to 33 kWh for each machine. These devices also reduced annual greenhouse gas
7 emissions by about 1.12 tons per machine. On average, the estimated savings translated to $192
per year (“Vending Misers”, 2001); however, this was a modest estimation because the annual
calculations assumed that the dorm building, in which the vending machine was located, would
be occupied for the entire year. In reality, vacation periods would produce greater amounts of
consumer inactivity and correlate to greater savings. Furthermore, the university worked to
promote campus awareness of these innovative energy reducing devices by posting signs on the
vending machines equipped with Vending Misers.
We believe that the savings reported in both the Tufts and Harvard University studies
could be translated to the vending machines at BC if these Vending Miser devices were installed
on each machine. However, an obstacle that may impede the implementation of these devices is
the fact that nearly all of BC’s vending machines have card readers. Most students depend on
these card readers to quickly and conveniently purchase goods at the vending machines, though
if the machines are unplugged or powered down by a Vending Miser device, the card readers no
longer work and must be manually reset by a technician. When the card readers are not working,
most students would be unable to buy products from these machines and the university would
experience a decline in consumer activity. Furthermore, due to the widespread locations of these
machines across BC’s multiple campuses, requiring technicians to constantly reset the card
readers at each of the machines may not be practical. Nevertheless, Vending Miser devices could
still be implemented in the vending machines at BC if the devices were modified so that they
would turn off the machines without affecting the card readers.
In addition to supplemental energy reducing devices, Tufts University also replaced their
old vending machines with energy star certified machines. Energy star certified machines can be
classified as Class A or Class B machines depending on their different refrigeration mechanisms.
Class A machines cool the entire internal volume in the refrigerated unit, use shelf-style vending
mechanisms, and tend to utilize transparent glass fronts. In these machines, all of the beverages
are placed in the cooling area. In contrast, Class B machines cool specific zones of the unit and
generally have opaque fronts, provide better insulation from ambient conditions, and utilize
stack-style vending mechanisms (Kasavana, 2009). Furthermore, energy star vending machines
must be able to operate in at least one type of low power mode including: functioning with the
lights off for a period of time, operating at an average temperature of 40o F for a selected amount
8 of time, or both of these methods combined. These machines must be able to resume their normal
functional settings during periods of activity (“Key Product Criteria”, 2014)
These energy star machines use approximately 50 percent less energy than the
conventional units and on average save $150 per machine each year. Energy star vending
machines are able to save 1,700 kWh per year with their more efficient compressors, fan
systems, and LED lighting. Many other institutions such as SUNY at Buffalo also replaced 132
machines with new energy star units that have produced immense savings of $20,948 and
261,849 kWh each year. Many of these universities have determined that investing in energy
reducing technology for vending machines is a low-cost and high-return procedure (“Energy
Consumption on Ice,” 2009).
Another strategy that we investigated to improve the energy efficiency of vending
machines involved removing the vending machine lights or de-lamping the machines. Delamping vending machines has the potential to reduce energy costs by approximately 35%
(Morton, 2012). For vending machines that roughly use 7 - 14 kWh daily, these savings can
translate to about $127 per machine each year (Ibid). However, if such a strategy as de-lamping
is to be implemented, it is important to notify consumers that the vending machines without
lights are still functional. This could be done through placing signs near the machines that not
only notify consumers that the machines are operational, but also communicate to them the
benefits of de-lamping the machines. Moreover, de-lamping vending machines may not be a
popular option with vendors because of the possibility of a reduction in sales. According to the
Coca-Cola Company, “lights help reinforce brand and package availability and communicates to
the consumers that the brands are ice cold, ready to purchase, and that the vender is operating
properly” (The Coca-Cola Company, 2012). Regardless, de-lamping vending machines is a
strategy with no installation cost to BC and only minor labor costs to the vending companies that
can yield significant reductions in vending machine energy usage.
In addition to removing the lights from vending machines, investing in long-lasting and
energy efficient LED lights can reduce electricity costs. Many brands of LED lighting such as
CLEANLIFETM LED lights can easily be replaced in existing T8 and T12 fluorescent bulb
fixtures. Furthermore, changing from fluorescent bulbs to these LED lights can produce up to
62.5% in energy savings. In general, these bulbs have lifetimes up to 50,000 hours, are three
times brighter than fluorescent bulbs to increase consumer attraction, and produce less heat
9 (“Fluorescent Replacement LED Lights,” 2014). LEDs function well in low temperatures and do
not flicker or require time to warm up. Unlike their fluorescent counterparts, LEDs are also glass
and mercury free which makes recycling easy and decreases the risk of releasing toxins into the
environment. Because of these additional benefits, these LED lights tend to be more expensive
than the fluorescent bulbs. A 2 foot fluorescent bulb can generally be priced at roughly $5 while
a 2 foot LED lamp can cost relatively $46.75. However, switching from 18W fluorescent lamps
to 10W CLEANLIFETM LED Light Tubes can save approximately $276.5 over a period of 4
years (Ibid). Although these LED lamps cost more, they have longer lifespans and therefore
require less lamps to be purchased and fewer service calls for installation in comparison to that
of the fluorescent lamps. Installing LED lights into BC’s snack vending machines may appear to
be a costly option, however, representatives at Next Generation agreed to cover the cost of
installation for BC (Keating, 2014). Ultimately, retrofitting vending machines with energy
efficient LED lights proves to be a beneficial energy investment capable of producing reductions
in energy costs.
A final strategy to reduce energy usage of beverage vending machines is installing
compressor controllers. These energy saving devices “feature an occupancy sensor that switches
the machine to unoccupied mode after 15 minutes of room inactivity, reducing the number of
compressor cycles required” (Morton, 2012). This device only raises the product temperature 2-5
degrees, which is not damaging to the product or even noticeable to consumers (Ibid). It is
estimated that this device would decrease energy usage of the machines by 30% (Ibid). Since
these machines do not turn the power off completely, they would not negatively impact the card
readers. These devices are estimated to cost between $100 and $200. It is also important to note
that compressor controllers should not be utilized in vending machines that sell dairy products or
other foods that are capable of spoiling. However, none of the existing beverage vending
machines at BC carry perishable products, therefore, adding compressor controllers to the
machines would not be an issue. In the end, implementing compressor controllers to the beverage
machines at BC is a viable option that can help to extend the operating life of these machines and
reduce their overall energy usage.
10 Results
In our study, the initial step was to locate all of the vending machines on BC’s campus
and record detailed information about them including the machine location, model number,
energy star certification, lighting, card reader capabilities, and any additional relevant
information. The full list can be seen in Appendix A. We then put all of the locations of the
vending machines on maps of the BC campuses, along with the volume of the machines in the
individual locations to gain a full understanding of the distribution of the machines on BC’s
campuses (see Appendix B).
A major focus of this data collection was the lighting within the machines. The lights in
the Next Generation machines were very easy to view. We found that of the 46 Next Generation
machines on BC’s campuses, six of them did not have LED lights. The Coca-Cola machines,
however, were much harder to assess. There was no way to see inside the machine to view the
bulb. We also attempted to gain the Coca-Cola lighting information through our many different
contacts, however they were unable to provide this information to us. Therefore, we decided to
focus on an LED solution just for the Next Generation machines.
Another focus of this data collection was the energy star certification of the machines.
We determined if the machines were energy star certified by looking for energy star stickers on
the machines and also verifying the model numbers on the energy star website (“ENERGY
STAR Certified Vending Machines”, 2014). Most of the Coca-Cola machines were energy star
certified. Specifically, 70 out of the 101 Coca-Cola Machines were energy star certified.
However, none of the Next Generation machines were energy star certified (see Appendix D:
Table 1 & Appendix D: Figure 1). This was definitely an area with significant opportunity for
improvement.
After we collected all of this information about the individual machines, we created maps
of the different campuses with the machine locations documented on them. This provided an
easy way to view the locations and volumes of the vending machines throughout BC. These
maps can be viewed in Appendix B. We found that in some areas, particularly the dining halls,
there were large concentrations of vending machines.
After we had the results of these initial steps, we began to conduct our cost-benefit
analysis. First, we calculated the current energy usage of the vending machines using the data we
collected from our machine tests. From this it was determined that the machines collectively use
11 305.75 kilowatt-hours per day. This calculates out to an annual energy cost of $15,529.52 (see
Appendix D: Table 2). It was assumed that the vending machines were on every day of the year
(MacDonald, 2014). The $15,529.52 annual energy costs was a substantial amount of money and
was definitely something that we could reduce. In addition, these machines caused 119.41 tons
of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere annually. This carbon dioxide number was
calculated assuming that the electricity that these vending machines used was produced using
coal (“How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Produced,” 2014) which is most likely the source of BC’s
electricity (MacDonald, 2014). Overall, reducing the vending machines’ energy usage would
also prevent some of this carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Therefore
retrofitting these machines would have both economic and environmental benefits.
The four different retrofitting strategies we tested as mentioned previously were replacing
the non-LED lights, installing Vending Miser energy management devices on the machines, delamping the machines and installing compressor controls on the Coca-Cola machines. The first
option of replacing the fluorescent lights with LED lights was only applicable to the Next
Generation machines as mentioned above. The calculations were conducted assuming that the six
Next Generation machines that did not have LED lighting would be retrofitted with LED ones. It
was calculated that this would lead to annual cost savings of $39.31 and annual CO2 savings of
0.31 tons. This was calculated from the data that we collected on the energy usage of a machine
with LED lighting and one without. We then compared the two metrics to determine the savings.
The second option of installing energy saving devices assumed that Vending Miser
devices were installed on the Coca-Cola vending machines and Snack Miser devices were
installed on the Next Generation vending machines. The same company, Vending Miser,
produces both of these devices. The break down in costs per machine between energy star
machines and non-energy star machines can be seen in Appendix D: Figure 2. With these
numbers it was determined that retrofitting the vending machines with these devices would lead
to $4,109.39 in annual cost savings. Furthermore this would prevent 31.46 tons of carbon dioxide
from being released into the atmosphere annually as well. The Vending Miser devices cost $189
and the Snack Miser devices cost $89 (“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products”, 2014). This
total initial investment of $23,183 would be paid back through energy cost savings in 5.64 years.
The third option was de-lamping the machines. This requires taking the lamps out of each
machine, which leads to approximately 35% in energy savings (Morton, 2012). This would bring
12 about annual cost savings of $5,460.89 and carbon dioxide savings of 41.99 tons. This delamping process would most likely not cost BC anything as many vending companies will do
this for free (Ibid). This method would lead to the greatest savings and requires no initial
investment by BC.
The fourth option was adding compressor controls to the Coca-Cola vending machines.
As previously mentioned, these devices reduce energy usage of the vending machines by 30%
(Ibid). Consequently, this strategy would bring annual cost savings of $4,003.34 and CO2
savings of 30.81 tons. These compressors would initially cost BC $12,625, but with the annual
savings this cost would be paid back in 3.15 years.
All of these methods provide savings to BC in both energy costs and carbon dioxide
emissions (see Appendix D: Figure 3 & Appendix D: Figure 4). In addition the energy cost
savings data can be seen in Appendix D: Table 3. Our study assumed that every machine
possible would be retrofitted. Per machine data can be seen in Appendix D: Figure 5 to better
understand the change in energy costs associated with implementing the retrofitting strategy on
just one machine.
Analysis and Conclusions
There are many conclusions that can be drawn from these results. Firstly, the map shows
that in areas of high volume there are many machines (see Appendix B). For example, there are 8
Coca-Cola machines in McElroy, which already has two dining halls in it where snacks and
beverages can be purchased. Having 8 machines is excessive. Although we were not allowed to
know the data behind the usage and profitability of these individual machines
(Karamourtopoulos, 2014), we believe that some of the machines in areas like this could be
removed. This would lower BC’s annual energy costs by $132.12 for every removed Coca-Cola
machine and $47.50 for every Next Generation machine removed. This removal process would
not cost anything to BC, as the vending companies would cover the cost of the removal of the
machines (Ibid). Overall, taking some vending machines out could be very beneficial. However,
more information would have to be made available to fully understand how much profits would
be lost from taking these machines out.
Also from the map we discovered that the newer, more efficient machines were in the
more visible areas such as popular academic buildings and the libraries. The older, less efficient
13 machines were located in the basements of freshmen residence halls and other less popular spots
on campus. These machines in less popular areas have most likely not been upgraded because no
one has complained about them looking old or inefficient. However, if students and
administrators voiced their opinions about these machines, the vending companies would be
more likely to switch them to the newer, more efficient models. These models would likely use
less energy and be energy star certified as “ENERGY STAR certification is required on all new
Coca-Cola vending machines” (The Coca-Cola Company, 2012). This would most likely not
only save energy costs from more efficient machines but would also improve profits, as these
machines would look more appealing and encourage customers to make purchases more often.
Furthermore, the Next Generation machines are currently not energy star certified. Again,
getting students and administrators to request energy star certified machines could have a great
impact on getting newer models to campus and thus lowering BC’s energy costs with little effort
or investment from BC. As mentioned above, most current energy star models use 50% less
energy and thus would lead to additional energy cost savings. The information about the energy
usage of available newer models was unfortunately not made available to us, thus we could not
do a full analysis of this option. However, both companies seemed very open to making changes
to the machines that were requested by the university (Keating, 2014). This is a viable option that
should be considered by BC.
The four retrofitting options that we analyzed all brought cost and carbon dioxide
savings. However, they each have their pros and cons, particularly when it comes to the
feasibility of each option. The first option of switching the LED lights out in Next Generation
machines is very feasible. In our conversation with Mike Keating we found that if BC identified
the non-LED lights and requested them to be switched out, they could do this at no cost to BC.
Although this option leads to very minimum savings of just $39 a year, it should definitely be
undertaken because it could be easily implemented at no cost to the university.
The second strategy of installing Vending Miser devices would have many savings in
both cost and carbon dioxide. However, it would take over 5 years to pay back the initial
investment. It may be hard to convince management of implementing this strategy when savings
will not occur for so long. Furthermore, these types of energy management devices are currently
not compatible with the vending machines at BC because of the card readers (MacDonald, 2014).
In addition, Tufts University also noted several complications with the installation process for
14 the Vending Miser devices. Before the energy conservation device can be installed, the vending
machine must be disconnected from it’s electrical outlet. This often requires a great amount of
labor and coordination with the manufacturing company. Additionally, in areas where several
vending machines were connected to the same electrical circuit, the intense electrical load often
overwhelmed the Vending Miser and the entire circuit. New additional circuits had to be
installed in order for the vending machines to function normally again (Vending Misers, 2001).
Despite these drawbacks of the Vending Miser, looking into these devices further and
increasing the feasibility of these devices would be very beneficial as there are many additional
benefits besides cost and CO2 savings. They often lengthen the life of the machines because the
machines are powered down more often (“Vending Miser FAQs”, 2014). Moreover, Vending
Miser claims that the devices will increase sales because the vending machines will attract even
more attention when the machines power up and the lights flash, encouraging potential
customers to make purchases (Ibid). This option should definitely be investigated further.
The third energy saving option was de-lamping the machines. This could very easily be
done at potentially no cost to the university as many vending companies will do this for free
(Morton, 2012). This strategy would bring the most substantial cost and CO2 savings compared
to all of the other options analyzed (see Appendix D: Figure 3 & Appendix D: Figure 4).
However, there are many drawbacks to it as well. It is speculated that de-lamping the machines
would be much less profitable because potential buyers would not be attracted to the dark
machines and may think they were broken (“Vending Miser FAQs”, 2014). Therefore, it is not
likely that the administration would be willing to do this even though it does provide the most
cost and CO2 savings of $5,460.89 and 41.99 tons respectively. This strategy may be made more
effective by putting signs on the machines that explain the energy saving tactic (Morton, 2012).
However, this strategy may still face opposition from the vending companies.
The final option was adding compressor controls to the Coca-Cola vending machines.
Since these only change the compressor cycle when the machine is switched to inactive mode
after 15 minutes (Ibid), they are much more feasible. They do not switch the whole machine off
and thus do not impact the card readers on the machine. They also extend the life of the machine
because the compressor is not required to work at full capacity constantly and thus can last
longer (Ibid). This additionally reduces the maintenance costs for the machine because the
compressor does not break down as much when it is not working at full capacity (Ibid). The only
15 downside is that there may be initial labor costs if the vending companies do not agree to install
the devices for free. However, Morton claims that some utilities offer a turnkey program that
installs the compressor controls at no cost while others provide rebates for 50-75% of the unit
cost (Ibid). This is definitely something that could be looked into with BC’s particular utility
provider as this would substantially reduce the 3 year payback period.
Recommendations
Just focusing on cost and carbon savings, de-lamping the machines would be the best
option for BC. However, as mentioned above, this option is not the most feasible. Therefore, the
best and most feasible decision would be to implement both the LED light and compressor
control strategies. Switching to LED lights in the Next Generation machines would be no cost to
BC but would provide them with $39 in annual savings. Although this is not much, there is no
downside to this option. On the other hand, the compressor control option provides substantial
annual savings of $4,003 and the initial investment would be paid back fully in just over three
years. This payback period could even be reduced by utility company turnkey programs that
cover at least part of the costs. Together these options would provide $4,042.65 in cost savings
and 31.12 tons of carbon dioxide savings annually if they are implemented on every machine.
Shutting down machines should also be further investigated. This type of study would
need to be conducted by a higher level of administration as the profit and usage information for
the vending machines is sensitive information. Therefore, the BC administration should look
further into this option. It could provide $132.12 savings in energy costs for every Coca-Cola
machine removed and $47.50 for every Next Generation machine. Ultimately, removing multiple
machines could have large benefits.
Finally, students and administration personnel should also start requesting more efficient
machines. This could make a large impact on the energy usage of the machines and requires no
investment from the school. The vending companies are receptive to BC’s preferences and
requests, therefore when they are addressed there is opportunity for improvement.
These recommendations all greatly help BC improve its energy efficiency regarding its
vending machines. They all provide significant energy cost savings and limit BC’s carbon
dioxide emissions. In addition, most of these changes require minimal effort from the school,
while bringing large savings in energy costs and CO2 emissions.
16 Conclusion
The purpose of this report was to examine the energy usage and carbon footprint of the
vending machines on BC’s campuses and assess all possible methods to increase their energy
efficiency and sustainability. To accomplish this goal our team documented all vending
machines across campus, measured the energy use of multiple models, researched the available
alternatives and results of implementing these changes, and created a cost-benefit analysis to
quantify our findings. The results of our project found that there are many ways for BC to
improve the energy efficiency of its vending machines. Furthermore, there are pros and cons
associated with each energy efficiency alternative that we examined. Based on these results, we
recommend installing LED lights into the Next Generation machines and compressor controllers
into the Coca-Cola machines. The two options combined provide cost savings of $4,043 and
carbon dioxide savings of 31 tons annually. BC should take our recommendations into
consideration and continue monitoring and investigating the vending machines at the university
in the future.
17 Works Cited
"ENERGY STAR Certified Vending Machines." EPA ENERGY STAR. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Apr.
2014. <http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-vending-machines/>.
“Fluorescent Replacement LED Lights.” Vendors Exchange International Inc. Unified Strategies
Group, Inc., 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://www.veii.com/innovations/ledbulbs>.
"How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Produced per Kilowatt hour When Generating Electricity with
Fossil Fuels?" U.S. Energy Information Administration, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Apr.
2014. <http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11/>.
Karamourtopoulos, Paul. “Boston College Vending Relations Specialist”. McElroy Commons,
Boston College. February 10th, 2014.
Kasavana, Michael. "ENERGY STAR: What It Means to Vending Market Watch."
VendingMarketWatch. Automatic Merchandiser, 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/article/10257118/energy-star-what-it-means-tovending>.
Keating, Michael. “Next Generation, Boston College Representative”. McElroy Commons,
Boston College. February 10th, 2014.
MacDonald, John. “Energy Manager, Boston College”. St. Clement’s Hall, Boston College.
February 7th, 2014.
Morton, Jennie. “5 Ways to Green Your Vending Machines.” Buildings Smarter Facility
Management. Stamats Communications, Inc., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/14826/title/5-ways-to-green-yourvending-machines.aspx>.
Powell, Alvin. “Vending Machine Innovations Slake Thirst for Savings.” Harvard Gazette:
Smart Machines save Energy. Harvard University, 17 Oct. 2002. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.17/15-vend.html>.
“Putting Vending Machine Energy Consumption on Ice.” Wildlife Promise. National Wildlife
Federation, 11 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://blog.nwf.org/2009/08/puttingvending-machine-energy-consumption-on-ice/>.
"Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines Key Product Criteria." ENERGY STAR. United State
Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=vending_machines.pr_crit_
18 vending_machines>.
"Residence Hall Association of Boston College." BC.edu. Boston College, n.d. Web. 25 Apr.
2014. <http://www.bc.edu/offices/reslife/lifeinhalls/programs/rha.html>.
Segrave, Kerry. Vending Machines: An American Social History. Jefferson, NC: McFarland,
2002. Print.
"Sustainability at Boston College." BC.edu. Boston College, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/offices/sustainability.html>.
The Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company Vending Equipment: Commitment to
Improve Environmental Performance. Atlanta: Coca-Cola, 2012. Print.
"Vending Machines for Consumers." ENERGY STAR. Environmental Protection Agency.
Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <https://www.energystar.gov/certifiedproducts/detail/vending_machines>.
“Vending Misers.” Office of Sustainability. Tufts University, 2001. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
<http://sustainability.tufts.edu/vending-misers/>.
“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products.” Vending Miser. Optimum Energy Products Ltd,
2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.vendingmiserstore.com/>.
"Vending Miser Frequently Asked Questions." Energy Misers. Sanders and Associates, LLC,
n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2014. <www.vendingenergymisers.com/documents/VendingMiser
FAQ.pdf>.
19 Appendix A: Vending Machine Detailed Location
20 21 22 Appendix B: Vending Machine Locations
1
Appendix B: Figure 1
Coca-Cola Vending Machines – Main Campus
Total:89
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1 5
2
3
3
1
2
1
8
3
5
1
7
2121
Commonwealth
Ave
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
Theology
Library
1
3
2
4
3
2
3
1
1
23 Appendix B: Figure 2
Coca-Cola Vending Machine Locations – Newton Campus
Total: 12
2
2
3
1
4
24 Appendix B: Figure 3
Next Generation Vending Machines – Main Campus
Total: 40
1
1
1
117 Lake St.
2
9 Lake St.
1
1
2
2
1
2121
Commonwealth
Ave
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Appendix B: Figure 4
Next Generation Vending Machine Locations – Newton Campus
Total: 5
1
1
1
2
25 Appendix C: Excel Spreadsheets/Calculations
Appendix C: Figure 1 - Base Case Calculations
Base Case
CO2 produced per kilowatt hour
2.14
Coke Machines
Number of Machines
Newton Campus with LED
Newton Campus without LED
Brighton Campus with LED
Brighton without LED
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus with LED
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus without LED
5
4
5
85
29
6
101
0
101
39
6
45
107
110
108.5
0.1085
35
41
38
0.038
1.736
9.2225
10.9585
0.38
1.14
1.52
Without LED
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
0
0
0
0
43
44
43.5
0.0435
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
0
0
0
0
0.261
0.261
Total
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
1.736
9.2225
10.9585
0.38
1.401
1.781
Cost per Kilowatt Hour
Cost per kilowatt hour (Newton and Brighton)
Newton and Brighton total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.155
$0.27
$0.155
$0.06
Cost per kilowatt hour (Main campus)
Main Campus total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.136
$1.25
$0.136
$0.19
$1.52
$0.25
Total with LED
Total without LED
Total number
Kilowatts
LED
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
Total cost per kilowatt hour
NextGen Machines
12
12.7395
26 Cost per Time Period
Day
Coke
Next Generation
24
$36.56
$5.99
$42.55
720
$1,096.80
$179.59
$1,276.40
8760
$13,344.46
$2,185.06
$15,529.52
119.41
102.72
$132.12
16.69
$47.50
Month
Yearly
Annual C02 Usage in tons
Annual CO2 Usage Per Machine Type
Annual Cost Per Machine
27 Appendix C: Figure 2 - Next Generation LED Analysis
Next Gen/ LED Analysis
Coke Machines
Number of Machines
Newton Campus New Machines
Newton Campus Old Machines
Brighton Campus New Machines
Brighton without Old Machines
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus New Machines
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus Old Machines
NextGen Machines
12
5
4
5
85
35
101
0
101
45
0
45
107
110
108.5
0.1085
35
41
38
0.038
1.736
9.2225
10.9585
0.38
1.368
1.748
107
107
107
0.107
43
44
43.5
0.0435
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
1.736
9.2225
10.9585
0.38
1.368
1.748
Cost per Kilowatt Hour
Cost per kilowatt hour (Newton and Brighton)
Newton and Brighton total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.155
$0.27
$0.155
$0.06
Cost per kilowatt hour (Main campus)
Main Campus total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.136
$1.25
$0.136
$0.19
$1.52
$0.24
24
$36.56
$5.88
720
$1,096.80
$176.36
Total Old Machines
Total New Machines
Total number
Kilowatts
New Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
Old Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
Total cost per kilowatt hour
12.7065
Cost per Time Period
Day
Month
28 Yearly
8760
$13,344.46
$2,145.74
$132.12
$46.65
102.7162122
16.3843536
$15,490.20
Annual Total Savings
$39.31
Annual Per Machine Savings
$6.55
Total Costs to Operate Machines
Annual CO2 Usage (tons)
119.10
Annual C02 Savings (tons)
0.31
Annual CO2 Usage by Maching Type
29 Appendix C: Figure 3 - Vending Miser Analysis
Vending Miser
Cost of Energy Saving Device
Percentage Saved on Energy Star Machines
Percentage Saved on NonEnergy Star Machines
$189.00
$89.00
19%
46%
19%
46%
Coke
Number of Machines
Newton Campus Non-Energy Star
Newton Campus Energy Star
Brighton Campus Non-Energy Star
Brighton Campus Energy Star
Chestnut Hill (Main) Non-Energy Star
Chestnut Hill (Main) Energy Star
Next Generation
9
3
5
5
4
22
63
35
31
70
101
45
0
45
Kilowatts
Non-Energy Star Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
58.59
58.59
58.59
0.05859
20.52
41
30.76
0.03076
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
0.52731
1.28898
1.81629
0.3076
1.10736
1.41496
Energy Star Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
87.885
87.885
87.885
0.087885
30.78
30.78
30.78
0.03078
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
0.615195
5.536755
6.15195
0
0
0
Total
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
1.142505
6.825735
7.96824
0.3076
1.10736
1.41496
Cost per Kilowatt Hour
Cost per kilowatt hour (Newton and Brighton)
Newton and Brighton total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.155
$0.18
$0.155
$0.05
Cost per kilowatt hour (Main campus)
Main Campus total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.136
$0.93
$0.136
$0.15
Total Non-Energy Star Machines
Total Energy Star Machines
Total number
$278.00
9.3832
30 Total cost per kilowatt hour
$1.11
$0.20
24
$26.53
$4.76
720
$795.88
$142.76
8760
$9,683.20
$1,736.92
$36.25
$95.87
$9.74
$37.76
$19,089.00
$4,094.00
Cost per Time Period
Day
Month
Yearly
$11,420.12
Annual Total Savings
$4,109.39
Annual Savings per Machine
Annual Costs
Total Cost
Payback Amount
$23,183.00
5.64
Annual CO2 Usage (tons)
87.95
Annual C02 Savings (tons)
31.46
Annual CO2 Usage
Annual Cost of Operating Machines
Base Case
ENERGY STAR
Non-ENERGY STAR
74.69
13.26
$132.12
$107.02
$132.12
$47.50
$38.48
$47.50
31 Appendix C: Figure 4 - De-lamping Analysis
De-lamping
Percentage Saved from De-lamping
35%
Coke Machines
Number of Machines
Newton Campus
Newton Campus Retrofitted
Brighton Campus
Brighton without Retrofitted
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus Retrofitted
12
5
4
5
85
35
0
101
101
0
45
45
107
110
108.5
0.1085
35
41
38
0.038
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retrofitted Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
70.525
70.525
70.525
0.070525
24.7
24.7
24.7
0.0247
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
1.1284
5.994625
7.123025
0.247
0.8892
1.1362
Total
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
1.1284
5.994625
7.123025
0.247
0.8892
1.1362
Cost per Kilowatt Hour
Cost per kilowatt hour (Newton and Brighton)
Newton and Brighton total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.155
$0.17
$0.155
$0.04
Cost per kilowatt hour (Main campus)
Main Campus total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.136
$0.82
$0.136
$0.12
$0.99
$0.16
Total Regular Machines
Total Retrofitted Machines
Total number
Kilowatts
Regular Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
Total cost per kilowatt hour
NextGen Machines
8.259225
32 Cost per Time Period
Day
24
$23.76
$3.82
720
$712.92
$114.64
8760
$8,673.90
$1,394.73
$10,068.63
$46.24
$85.88
$17.18
$30.32
$63.42
66.77
10.65
Month
Yearly
Annual Total Savings
$5,460.89
Annual Savings per Machine
Annual Costs per Machine
Annual CO2 Usage (tons)
77.42
Annual C02 Savings (tons)
41.99
Annual CO2 Usage
33 Appendix C: Figure 5 - Compressor Control Analysis
Compressor Control
Cost of Compressor Control
Percentage Saved from Method
$125.00
30%
Coke Machines
Number of Machines
Newton Campus
Newton Campus Retrofitted
Brighton Campus
Brighton without Retrofitted
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus
Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus Retrofitted
5
12
5
4
85
29
6
0
101
101
39
6
45
107
110
108.5
0.1085
35
41
38
0.038
0
0
0
0.38
1.14
1.52
Retrofitted Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
75.95
75.95
75.95
0.07595
43
44
43.5
0.0435
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
1.2152
6.45575
7.67095
0
0.261
0.261
Total
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
1.2152
6.45575
7.67095
0.38
1.401
1.781
Cost per Kilowatt Hour
Cost per kilowatt hour (Newton and Brighton)
Newton and Brighton total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.155
$0.19
$0.155
$0.06
Cost per kilowatt hour (Main campus)
Main Campus total cost per kilowatt hour
$0.136
$0.88
$0.136
$0.19
Total Regular Machines
Total Retrofitted Machines
Total number
Kilowatts
Regular Machines
Initial watts
Ending watts
Average watts
kilowatts
Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton)
Total kilowatts (Main Campus)
Total kilowatts
NextGen Machines
9.45195
34 Total cost per kilowatt hour
$1.07
$0.25
24
$25.59
$5.99
720
$767.76
$179.59
8760
$9,341.12
$2,185.06
Cost per Time Period
Day
Month
Yearly
$11,526.18
Annual Total Savings
$4,003.34
Annual Savings per Machine
Annual Costs per Machine
Total Cost
$12,625.00
Payback Amount
3.15
Annual CO2 Usage (tons)
88.60
Annual C02 Savings (tons)
30.81
Annual CO2 Usage
$39.64
$92.49
71.90
16.69
35 Appendix D: Results
Appendix D: Table 1 - Comparison of Non-ENERGY STAR machines to ENERGY STAR
machines
Coke
Non-ENERGY STAR
ENERGY STAR
Total
Next Generation
31
70
101
45
0
45
Total Machines
76
70
146
Percentage
52%
48%
100%
Non-­‐ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR Appendix D: Figure 1 - Percentage of ENERGY STAR machines as opposed to Non-ENERGY
STAR
Appendix D: Table 2 - Energy Cost data for the base case broken down into daily, monthly and
yearly costs.
Cost per Time Period
Day
Coke
Next Generation
24
$36.56
$5.99
$42.55
720
$1,096.80
$179.59
$1,276.40
8760
$13,344.46
$2,185.06
$15,529.52
Month
Yearly
36 $140.00 $132.12 $120.00 $107.02 $100.00 $80.00 $71.35 Coke Machines $60.00 NextGen Machines $47.50 $38.48 $40.00 $25.65 $20.00 $0.00 Base Case ENERGY STAR Non-­‐ENERGY STAR Appendix D: Figure 2 - Energy cost savings per machine with the implementation of Vending
Miser Devices on ENERGY STAR machines versus non-ENERGY STAR machines
37 $18,000
$16,000
$15,529
$15,490
$14,000
$11,420
$12,000
$10,000
$11,526
Next
Generation
$10,069
Coke
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Base Case
NextGen/LED
Vending Miser
Delamping
Compressor
Control
Appendix D: Figure 3 - The total energy costs of the vending machines in the base case and
retrofitting options.
140.00
120.00
119.41
100.00
119.10
87.95
80.00
77.42
88.59
60.00
Next
Generation
Coke
40.00
20.00
0.00
Base Case
NextGen/LED Vending Miser
Delamping Compressor Control
Appendix D: Figure 4 - Total annual carbon dioxide emissions emitted for the base case and
each retrofitting option
38 Appendix D: Table 3 - Savings data for each retrofitting strategy broken down by machine type
and then by individual machines
Total Savings by Machine Type
Annual
Savings
Base Case
NextGen/LED
Vending Miser
De-lamping
Compressor
Control
$150.00
Coke
$39.31
$4,109.39
$5,460.89
$4,003.34
$132.12
Next Generation
-
Coke
$39.31
$448.14
$790.33
$3,661.26
$4,670.56
$4,003.34
Savings per Machine
Next Generation
-
-
$6.55
$9.74
$17.18
$36.25
$46.24
$39.64
-
$132.12
$95.87
$100.00
$85.88
$92.49
Coke
Next
Generation
$50.00
$47.50
$46.65
$47.50
$37.76
$30.32
$0.00
Base Case
NextGen/LED Vending Miser
Delamping
Compressor
Control
Appendix D: Figure 5: Total energy costs per vending machine in the base case and retrofitting
options.
39