Caltech Energy Assessment for Laboratories (CEAL) Summer 2011 Progress Report August 2011 Prepared by: Hanna Dodd & Scott Farley Sustainability Integration Interns John Onderdonk Manager for Sustainability Programs P a g e | 1 Table of Contents: Abstract pg. 3 Introduction pg. 3‐4 Methods pg. 4‐7 Summary of Steps pg. 4‐5 Division Outreach pg. 5 Interview pg. 5‐6 Lights pg. 5 Computing pg. 5 Equipment/Appliances pg. 6 Education/Outreach pg. 6 Data Collection pg. 6 Data Analysis pg. 6‐7 Findings pg. 7‐11 Data Analysis pg. 7‐9 Comparison Analysis pg. 10‐11 Follow‐Up Presentation pg. 11 Recommendations pg. 11‐13 Lighting pg. 12 Equipment pg. 12 Water pg. 12 Other pg. 12‐13 P a g e | 2 Appendices pg. 13‐14 A. Interview Questions pg. 13‐14 B. Inventory Library pg. 14 pg. 15 pg. 5 pg. 7 pg. 8 pg. 9 pg. 9 pg. 10 pg. 10 pg. 11 Acknowledgements Figures: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
CEAL Assessment by Division Pieces Inventoried Lab Equipment Average Energy Consumption & Cost Average Equipment Energy Consumption Quantity vs. Average Consumption Deviation From Average Laboratory Cost Watts/Ft² Percentage of Building Energy Consumption P a g e | 3 Abstract Caltech annually consumes 120 GWh of energy. Caltech is looking for ways to reduce this large consumption of energy by investigating its laboratory energy use. The Caltech Energy Assessment for Laboratories (CEAL) looks specifically at laboratory equipment energy consumption. The main objective of this research is to evaluate lab equipment and research lab procedures that will help to assist researchers in reducing lab energy consumption. Other objectives of CEAL include identifying and documenting lab energy conservation best practices, assisting partner labs in identifying additional opportunities for improvement in lab energy consumption, and facilitating collaboration and dissemination of energy conservation measures and best practices across the Caltech campus labs. To achieve these goals, each lab underwent the following six step process: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Division Outreach Interview Data Collection Data Analysis Comparison Analysis Follow‐Up Presentation The data from this process showed that computers, freezers, and vacuum pumps were the most common types of laboratory equipment found in Caltech labs. Through Data Analysis, it was found that the type of laboratory equipment that consumes the most energy on Caltech campus is a freezer; followed by furnaces/ovens, incubators/shakers, and vacuum pumps. The laboratory best practices we gave to our partner labs focused primarily on these types of laboratory equipment. It was also found that the Biology Division seemed to have the most energy intensive labs on campus, probably due to their high numbers of energy intensive equipment. Introduction Caltech is currently the largest consumer of energy in Pasadena, making up approximately 8% of Pasadena’s power consumption – consuming approximately 120 giga‐watt hours annually. With 3.9 million square feet (2.2 million square feet is research space), Caltech consumes roughly 300 MBTU of energy per square foot, which is significantly higher than a typical UC Campus (180 MBTU per square foot) 1 . Thus Caltech has a very high energy intensity for a college campus. Its high energy intensity is driven primarily by the 57% of campus that is dedicated to laboratories. Due to this high energy intensity, efforts are underway to improve the energy efficiency of building systems and meet the LEED Existing Building Operations and Maintenance (EBOM) program requirements. During this process of retrofitting the Broad Center on campus, it was found that, after heating and cooling, lab equipment is the next biggest energy consumer in the building 2 . Another study was also recently conducted as part of the Linde + Robinson Laboratory renovation to identify the 1
2
P4P member statistics Research Facilities Forum, August 22,2011 P a g e | 4 impact of lab equipment on the building’s energy consumption. The findings of the study showed a 44% savings on building energy consumption from replacing inefficient lab equipment 3 . These findings suggest that if Caltech wants to further reduce its energy consumption, an investigation needed to be done regarding the energy consumption of Caltech’s laboratory equipment. To address this need, the Caltech Energy Assessment for Laboratories (CEAL) was started to evaluate laboratory equipment and lab procedures to help assist Caltech researchers in reducing lab energy consumption. Other goals of CEAL include: •
•
•
identifying and documenting lab energy conservation best practices assisting partner labs in identifying additional opportunities for improvement in lab energy consumption facilitating collaboration and dissemination of energy conservation measures and best practices across the Caltech campus labs A six step process was used to facilitate the evaluation: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Division Outreach Interview Data Collection Data Analysis Comparison Analysis Follow‐Up Presentation Methods Summary of Steps Each step in our assessment process had a purpose. 1. Division Outreach ‐ established clear lines of communication that extended throughout the project. CEAL representatives worked with Division Administrators to identify partner labs enthusiastic about participating in the assessment process, learning about opportunities for improvement, and contributing to Caltech’s energy conservation efforts. 2. Interview – a meeting with lab managers or other knowledgeable lab users to gather information about laboratory behavior regarding energy conservation, and identify steps that were already taken to promote conservation in the laboratory. 3. Data Collection ‐ a tour of the lab to collect data of what brand names and types of equipment were in the lab and how frequently each piece of equipment was used. Rumsey Engineers, Inc. California Institute of Technology: Linde + Robinson Lab for Global Environmental Science. Pasadena, CA. September 3, 2009. 3
P a g e | 5 4. Data Analysis ‐ identify how much energy the laboratory equipment was using 4 based on manufacturer and other publicly available data. 5. Comparison Analysis ‐ energy consumption comparisons for Labs and for Divisions. 6. Follow‐Up Presentation ‐ a meeting with members of the partner lab was held to discuss the findings of the assessment, present possible improvement recommendations, and engage the lab members in an open dialogue on energy conservation measures. Division Outreach We assessed labs from six different Caltech Divisions: Biology, Beckman Institute (BI), Chemistry & Chemical Engineering (CCE), Geology & Planetary Sciences (GPS), Humanities & Social Sciences (HSS), and Physics, Mathematics, & Astronomy (PMA). The majority of CEAL partner labs came from Biology, GPS, and Beckman Institute. CEAL Assessment by Division
PMA
HSS 9%
9%
GPS
27%
CCE
9%
Interview After asking lab managers or other lab users a series of questions 5 , we found some common facets among Caltech laboratories. Lights •
•
•
Biology
28%
BI
18%
Figure 1: This pie chart shows the Division representation of labs we assessed.
There were no incandescent light bulbs in any of the eleven participating labs. Most labs had large areas controlled by a single light switch. The occupancy sensors for the lights in offices seemed to be well received by the users. Though some viewed the sensors as a safety hazard for laboratory spaces because if the lights went off when a lab user was working with harmful chemicals, this would be a significant problem for the user’s safety. Sensors might be more appropriate in hallways or other common spaces, but any changes to lighting will be coordinated with individual occupants needs. Computing •
•
There was only one CRT monitor in all of the eleven labs we walked through and it was in the process of being upgraded to a flat screen monitor. We also learned from the users that most of the lab computers went into sleep mode 6 or had their monitors turned off when not in use. 4
5
See Figure 3 and Appendix B. See Appendix A. P a g e | 6 Equipment/Appliances •
•
•
Portable space heaters and fans are rarely used in labs. They are only used when the lab is at extremely uncomfortable temperatures for the lab user. Not many labs inventory their freezers and if they do, they do it irregularly. When asked why lab users have not upgraded their equipment to energy efficient models, most users said that the energy efficient model is too expensive for them or it does not yet exist for their specific type of laboratory equipment (e.g. mass spectrometers). Education/Outreach •
•
Most interviewees had never seen a utility bill for their building before. Lab members discuss lab wide issues by email or group meetings. When interviewed, one Biology lab told us about the sustainable practices their group implements. When they print, they print on both sides of the paper and they have a community lab mandate that personal laptops be shut down when not in use. They have also posted a turn off checklist by the exit door of the lab that tells the lab member who is last to leave the lab what equipment/systems he or she needs to make sure is turned off. This lab seemed to have the best community lab practices of any of the eleven labs we assessed. Data Collection When walking through the participating labs, we saw some notable sites. •
•
•
•
•
One lab used the daylight from the skylights in its ceiling instead of the overhead lights 7 . One lab had a hot room and a cold room for temperature sensitive experiments. One building has all of the lab doors open to the hallway. Open hallway doors could affect the HVAC system controlling the lab’s temperature and pressure. The HVAC system may have to work harder to make up for the conditioned air that is lost to the hallway. One lab had a radio system that appeared to be on all the time (even when no one was in the lab). The most interesting finding was a hallway that had been converted into a server room. By conditioning this converted hallway to the servers’ requirements, the rest of the floor was being excessively cooled for this one room. Data Analysis We inventoried 619 pieces of laboratory equipment which could be classified into nine major types including: 6
7
See Recommendations/Equipment. See Recommendations/Lighting. P a g e | 7 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Appliances/cleaning (Autoclaves, Microwaves, Ultrasonic Cleaners, etc.) Centrifuges Computing Freezers Furnaces/ovens Hoods & BioSafety Cabinet (BSCs) Incubators/shakers Instrumentation (Gel Boxes, PCR machines, Plate Readers, Potentiostats, Spectrometers, etc.) Vacuum pumps Computing, Freezers, Instrumentation, and Vacuum pumps were the most prevalent types of equipment inventoried. Pieces Inventoried
Appliances/cleaning, Centrifuges, 21, 3%
13, 2%
Other, 172, 28%
Computing, 146, 24%
Freezers, 86, 14%
Vacuum pumps, 44, 7%
Instrumentation, 57, 9%
Incubators/shakers, 38, 6%
Hoods & BSC, 16, 3%
Furnaces/ovens, 26, 4%
Figure 2: This pie chart shows the breakdown (type, count and percentage) of the pieces of laboratory equipment that were inventoried. Findings Data Analysis After organizing the inventoried equipment by type, the average energy consumption of each type of equipment was calculated. Freezers were found to consume the most energy at an average of P a g e | 8 209 kWh per week for a typical freezer. By using the average cost of Caltech electricity, $0.15 per kWh, the electricity consumed by one freezer costs approximately $1,632 per year. Next were Furnaces/ovens at an average of 168 kWh per week ($1,313) for each one. That was followed by Incubators/shakers at an average of 155 kWh per week ($1,213) for each one. Then were Vacuum pumps at an average of 94 kWh per week ($730) each. The average energy consumption for all the inventoried equipment was 81 kWh per week. On average, electricity for one piece of laboratory equipment is estimated to cost $632 per year. Lab Equipment Average Energy Consumption & Cost Type of Equipment Appliances/cleaning Centrifuges Computing Freezers Furnaces/ovens Hoods & BSCs Incubators/shakers Instrumentation Vacuum pumps Other Average Individual kWh Estimated Electricity per week Cost per Year 28.62
$223
19.32
$151
22.03
$172
209.22
$1,632
168.27
$1,313
47.04
$367
155.47
$1,213
39.06
$305
93.57
$730
25.39
$198
Figure 3: This chart takes the average weekly energy consumption for each type of equipment and uses the average cost of Caltech electricity, $0.15 per kWh, to find each type of equipment’s electricity cost per year. P a g e | 9 Average Equipment kWh per week
Other Appliances/cleaning
Centrifuges
3%
3%
2%
Computing
3%
Instrumentation
5%
Vacuum pumps
12%
Freezers
26%
Incubators/shakers
19%
Hoods & BSC
6%
Furnaces/ovens
21%
Figure 4: This pie chart compares the average energy consumption for one piece of each type of equipment inventoried. 250
Quantity vs. Average Consumption
81 kWh per week Average 200
150
100
50
0
Quantity
Average Individual kWh per week
Figure 5: This bar graph compares the quantity of each type of equipment inventoried with the average energy consumption for one piece of that type of equipment. It also includes a marker to show the average energy consumption for all the inventoried equipment. P a g e | 10 Deviation From Average Laboratory Cost
Comparison Analysis Estimated Average Annual Energy Cost
When comparing the total equipment $25,000.00
energy consumption of each lab, we found that a $20,000.00
Biology lab, consuming $15,000.00
265 MWh per year, consumed the most $10,000.00
energy of all the eleven participating labs. That $5,000.00
Biology lab and a Chemistry lab consumed $0.00
100 MWh per year more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
than the third highest $5,000.00
energy consumer of the $10,000.00
other participating labs. By using the average cost of $15,000.00
Caltech electricity, $0.15 Selected CEAL Labs
for each kWh, we found that the estimated cost for Figure 6: The zero on this bar graph is the average $20,000 per year that the lab equipment a typical Caltech lab would be paying for its lab equipment’s electricity. electricity of this Biology Each CEAL lab is either above or below the average. lab was $40,000 per year and for the Chemistry lab, it was $39,000 per year. The average cost per lab for the electricity used to run the lab’s equipment was $20,000 per year. There were three Biology labs, one Chemistry lab, and one Geology lab that had estimated costs 8.83 W/Ft² over the average. Average
These labs 70,000
consumed high 60,000
amounts of energy 50,000
because they 40,000
contained a lot of 30,000
freezers and 20,000
vacuum pumps. Watts
Watts/Ft²
10,000
0
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Ft²
Figure 7: This graph shows the energy intensity of the eleven participating labs. The most intensive are found in the upper left corner, while the least intensive are found in the lower right corner. To find the most energy intensive labs, we calculated the watts per P a g e | 11 square feet of each lab. A Chemistry lab was the most energy intensive laboratory at 23.7 watts per square foot. There were two Biology labs, one Chemistry lab, and one Geology lab that were more intensive than the average 8.83 watts per square feet for all eleven participating labs. Percentage of Building Energy Consumption
25.0%
20.0%
8.4% is the average
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A lab that made up the biggest percentage of their building’s energy consumption was a Humanities Lab at 23.0% of Figure 8: For each participating lab, this graph shows its lab’s its buildings energy consumption. percentage of its building’s energy consumption. It was followed closely behind by a Geology lab at 22.9%. The average percentage of building energy consumption was 8.4% for a typical Caltech lab. There were two Geology labs, one Humanities lab, and one Biology lab that were above this average. The Biology lab took up an entire floor of its building, therefore it made up a large percentage of its building’s energy consumption. The other three labs were located in buildings with few labs in them. Being one of only a small number of labs in their building, they made up a large percentage of their buildings’ energy consumption. Selected CEAL Labs
We were only able to assess one Chemistry lab in the CCE Division. Although this lab was the most energy intensive lab of our eleven participating labs, we do not believe that this lab fairly represents all labs in the CCE Division. The Division that seemed to be the most energy intensive was Biology. Biology labs are the most energy intensive labs on campus because they have a lot of freezers, incubators/shakers, and even a few vacuum pumps. On average, a Biology lab consumed 157 MWh per year to run its laboratory equipment. Following close behind in energy consumption was the Beckman Institute, which consists of primarily of shared Biology labs, with a Beckman Institute lab consuming on average 151 MWh per year. Follow‐Up Presentation With the exception of the three participating labs that we did not present to, the rest of the presentations were well received by the lab members who attended. The PowerPoints summarizing the findings were sent out to each specific lab representative to be dispersed to all interested lab members. Based on the response to our findings from this process, we believe that the CEAL program should be expanded to more labs on campus. Further research could also be done by metering individual labs and individual laboratory equipment. Recommendations P a g e | 12 When we presented to participating labs, we focused our recommendations primarily on laboratory equipment that consumed the most electricity. Lighting •
•
•
•
Where possible, use natural daylight. Overhead lighting makes up 10‐20% of a typical lab’s energy use. To reduce your lab’s overhead lighting, see if you can have your lights on multiple switches or dimmers. Use a task light if you’re working alone—they’re cheap and are about 95% more energy efficient than using the overhead lighting. Learn the settings for your light switches—especially if you have occupancy sensors or timers on your lights. Equipment •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ask for energy efficient equipment in your laboratory. Share equipment with others—it saves money and forms a stronger campus community. Turn your computer all the way off whenever possible – although sleep mode does make computer consume 2‐10% of the energy it consumes when it is fully operational, standby power still accounts for around 10% of household power‐consumption. Turn off ovens and incubators when not in use—most only take 30‐45 minutes to heat up. Clean your freezers—defrost them when more than 2 cm of ice builds up and remember to vacuum the dust off the coils. The freezer will have more usable volume and be more efficient. Inventory your freezers—you will spend less time looking for samples and your samples will last longer. Plus, you might find samples you thought you lost! Don’t use a space heater—they are a fire risk, mess with building climate controls, and cost between $600 and $1000 per year to operate. Instead, contact the service center to have a technician inspect/repair your lab air handling equipment. Shut your sash! ‐ A variable volume fume hood is 60% more energy effective when the sash is down when not in use. Water •
•
•
Eliminate vacuum aspirators ‐ you will save over 160 gallons of purified water per hour. Use the right water quality for your tasks—don’t use purified water unless you have to. Wash glassware as efficiently as possible – don’t leave the water running if you can help it. Other •
Form a department “free shelf” where small, clean surplus items can be traded. P a g e | 13 •
To expand your lab energy savings program, try joining a lab energy savings contest like the Freezer Challenge 8 or start your own contest. We also learned through our discussion with one of the Biology labs that they had found a specific vacuum pump oil that enabled their vacuum pumps to operate more efficiently. The lab saw a reduction in the energy consumption of their vacuum pumps by switching from Inland 19 and Inland 20 oil (the manufacturer’s pump oils) to Inland 45 oil. Although this oil was more expensive than the manufacturer’s oil, the energy savings may justify the extra cost. After learning this, we proceeded to recommend to other labs that changing vacuum pump oil could be a means by which they reduce their labs energy consumption. Appendix A: Interview Questions •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How many people work in your lab? Does your lab have normal operation hours? If so, what are they? Briefly describe your lab. What things have already been done in the lab to increase efficiency and conserve energy and resources? Are occupancy sensors used for lighting? If yes, what are the settings? How do you (and other lab members) feel about this type of technology? Do you have scheduled defrosting/inventorying of your freezers? If yes, how often? How often do you keep your hallway door open? Who controls your thermostat? Who in the lab (if anyone) knows appropriate fume hood sash heights? Do you know if your hoods are variable air volume (VAV) or constant air volume (CAV)? Are PC monitors shut off and on sleep mode at the end of the work day? In general, is lab equipment consolidated as much as possible? In general, is lab equipment turned off/ Power managed when not in use? In general, is lab equipment used only when needed? Do you receive utility usage and cost reports for your building? Are steam and hot water pipes insulated? Are energy awareness materials displayed throughout the lab? Do you have any incandescent light bulbs in your lab? Are there any large areas that are controlled by a single light switch? Is lighting after hours & on weekends used only when needed? What percent of lights are shut off afterhours/ on weekends? How often do you use task lighting for individual areas? 8
UC Davis. (May 2011). Welcome to Freezer Challenge 2011! Are You Cool Enough? Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/storesmart/intro_to_freezer_challenge P a g e | 14 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do you know if your building has been designed to automatically control HVAC? If yes, does the automation match your occupation patterns? How often do lab members use space heaters? How often do lab members use portable fans? Are doors/ windows kept closed during hot and cold seasons? Is weather stripping found to be adequate around windows/ doors? Do you notice any leaks? How many CRT monitors operate in the lab? Could they be upgraded to LCD? Do you have any concerns about heating/cooling in this lab or building that we have not already addressed? Do you have any concerns about lighting in this lab or building that we have not already addressed? Do you have any comments about energy usage not already covered? Are there any extra lights & fixtures that could be deactivated? Were there any things preventing you from making energy‐saving changes in the past? If so, what were they? Do you have any other thoughts about increasing energy efficiency in your research? Which areas do you think could be improved? Appendix B: Inventory Library Electronic copies of the exact equipment inventoried in this assessment are available. If you would like to learn more about the equipment inventoried in this assessment and/or would like your own copy of the equipment library, please contact John Onderdonk at john.onderdonk@caltech.edu. P a g e | 15 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Matt Berbee & Michelle McFadden for their help in supplying information about the energy consumption of Caltech and answering questions about energy measures that are taking place on campus. We could not have done the presentations without them. We would also like to thank the Division Administrators who helped us find enthusiastic labs to participate in CEAL. •
•
•
•
•
•
Mike Miranda, Biology Division Administrator Paul Carroad, CCE Division Administrator Aleen Boladian, GPS Division Administrator Susan Davis, HSS Division Administrator Alan Rice, PMA Division Administrator Jay Labinger, BI Division Administrator And of course, this work could never have been done without the Partner Labs willingness to allow us to walk through their lab space and discuss energy issues with them. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Caltech Optical Observatories (COO) Ion Microprobe Facility Lewis Research Group Mayo Lab Molecular Materials Research Center (MMRC) Newman Lab Orphan Lab Proteome Exploration Laboratory (PEL) Rossman Lab Social Science Experimental Laboratory (SSEL) Sternberg Lab We at the Caltech Sustainability Department would like to thank these labs for their participation. We look forward to continuing our partnership with these labs as we work to reduce energy consumption in Caltech’s laboratories. For More Information about other Caltech Sustainability Projects: