Header image

Last week I caught up with Raj Maniher of Baw Baw shire council in their Smith Street Community Development office that council is renting in Warragul. Raj has implemented a number of measures to cut energy use in the office, and has achieved a 30% electricity saving.

Some of the measures implemented include:

Insulating the ceiling

Double glazing using “magnetite” on some of the windows.

Retrofit Double glazing

Retrofit Double glazing

Getting internal reflective blinds made up by a local blind maker. Very ingeneous!

Internal reflective blinds

Internal reflective blinds

Voltage reduction on the lights

Voltage reduction units on lighting circuits

Voltage reduction units on lighting circuits

Blanking off light fittings with a clear Perspex sheet to prevent air leakage into the ceiling cavity.

Glass panel under light fitting to keep conditioned air out of the ceiling cavity.

glass panel under light fitting to keep conditioned air out of the ceiling cavity.

Disconnecting inefficient lights and replacing with fluorescent

Upgrading to a 5 star fridge

5 star fridge

5 star fridge

Only switching on when needed – for example the airconditioner, and kitchen equipment is turned off at the wall when not in use.

switch off at wall

switch off at wall

Delamping

How would you save energy in your rented office?

Mal Oldis, an earlier innovator with LEDS, contacted me recently with the following comments on our report LED as a fluorescent substitute:

I have read with interest your assessment of LED lighting vs Fluorescent lighting. Well done!!
I have done much work with LEDs and yes, much credibility is lost due to false and exaggerated claims.
Indeed a company for which I was in charge of product development, failed partly due to exaggerated claims.
I probably built the first LED replacement (in Australia)  for a T8 over 10 years ago.
I learn t much from Agilent’s LED division in San Jose and also from the team at Philips in Holland.

Can I comment on your (very good) report?
I am not suggesting that you do not understand these issues, but there is some technical issues that commonly do not seemed to be explained to potential LED users.

Life time issues. Rated life time for LEDs and Fluorescent lamps is very different but the same term is used.
Rated life time of fluorescent lamps is usually stared time taken (under specified switching cycles) for half the lamps (median life) to fail.
Between 6 to 30 thousand hours are possible.

The rated life under these conditions for most LEDs is around 1.4 million hours. The “life time”  quoted for LEDs of say 50,000 hours (typical for white) is the 50% radiant (photometric) output level. It is interesting to note move to 70% output as noted in your report.

It is common to use the LOR (Light Output Ratio) figure for luminair directly. Also lumen maintenance can vary considerably for a luminair that uses fluorescent lamp due to dust and other contamination on the tube and the reflector, which forms part of the secondary optics.
Any  secondary optics (diffusers etc) using LEDs is simpler and therefore more efficient.

When I talk of the economics of LED lamps, I create an economic model and refer to cost of ownership which includes various maintenance regimes.

Also there is often no mention of the spectral properties, notably the Color Rendering Index which is poor for Fluorescent and even poorer in LEDs.

I did the original engineering for the BP Neon replacement for the service station canopies, and did much work with the City of Port Phillip using LEDs for public lighting.

Cheers,
Mal Oldis.

This morning the City of Melbourne, City of Port Philip and Sustainability Victoria launched the City Switch Workbook. This workbook shows tenants 9 easy steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

delamping demonstration

delamping demonstration

Brett Muncton (City of Melbourne) and Jake Hallas (Sustainability Victoria) gave a entertaining demonstration of how the workbook can be used. The photos above and below show them demonstrating delamping (step two in the workbook) and setting up power saving settings on a PC (step six).

setting computer power management settings

setting computer power management settings

Written by CarbonetiX, the workbook is based on our successful Greenhouse Gossip program, which was launched in 2008. City Switch signatories in the City of Melbourne and City of Port Philip will also be offered a structured mentoring process, aka the Greenhouse Gossip program.

Presentations by Gadens Lawyers, Telstra and Toyota at the launch showed how its possible to achieve significant energy savings in tenancies. In the case of Gadens Lawyers, a 22% saving was achieved over 12 months at no cost. This was achieved by improving switch off practices, step one of the City Switch Workbook.

city switch work book

city switch work book

Details of the City Switch program can be found here. If you aren’t a tenant in one of the City Switch cities and want to participate in a structured mentored program to achieve guaranteed energy savings please inquire about our Greenhouse Gossip program. Its also suited to those who own their own office building in addition to tenants.

In October 2008 we started an independent evaluation of LED lights as a substitute for fluorescent lighting. The evaluation was undertaken in partnership with the Sustainability Fund, managed by Sustainability Victoria, and with the support of Frankston City Council. We chose to focus on fluorescent lighting because this is by far the most common form of lighting used in commercial buildings.

The trial has involved firstly a desk-top evaluation of LED products, then selection of lamps from those six manufacturers who appeared to have the best products. These were then tested by CarbonetiX for light output and power consumption. The best performing lamp was then sent to a NATA certified laboratory for photometric testing.

The useful light provided by the best lamp in a standard office fluorescent fitting was similar to that of a used halo-phosphor fluoro tube – a surprising result as earlier testing we had undertaken indicated the LEDs were just not bright enough to be used as a fluorescent substitute.”

We then replaced 176 fluorescent tubes with the lamp that had performed best in our testing  in the Mahogany Neighbourhood Community Centre in the City of Frankston.  Users of the facility were surveyed before and after the upgrade and noted either no change or an improvement in the lighting. An illumination assessment showed that illumination levels after the upgrade were around the same as before. Yet power consumption has dropped from over 40 watts per lamp down to 18 watts.

In October we undertook another check up of the lamps, eight months after they were installed. Illumination levels were similar to when they were installed, and none of the LED lights had failed.  Eight months of operation is not nearly long enough to establish whether or not the lamps will operate for 50,000 hours or not as claimed by the manufacturer. But it is a good start.

LEDs as a fluorescent substitute are still expensive, with roughly a ten year return on investment in an office environment. But this trial indicates that if the technology continues to evolve and prices drop that LEDs could help halve the use the energy used by lighting in commercial buildings.

In June the US Department of Energy launched the $10 million “L Prize” for the development of a 21st century lamp that produces more than 150 lumens per watt (current lighting technology is around 100 lumens per watt).  It also challenged the industry to develop a 10 watt LED replacement for the 60 watt incandescent light bulb. Philips have already submitted an entry in the 10 watt incandescent replacement.

With stimulation like this LED technology can only improve.

Not withstanding this good news, a strong word of caution for the here and now is necessary. After our testing we had a lot of LEDs from a number of manufacturers lying around our office. So of course we took out our fluoro tubes and put them in. All of these LED tubes, from five different manufacturers, have now failed. My advice would be for anyone contemplating the use of LEDs – firstly make sure you are happy with the level of illumination provided, then secondly ask the supplier to provide a minimum 3 year or 15,000 hour guarantee, with lumen depreciation (loss of light output) to be no more than 10% over the 15,000 hours.

A zero net energy office building is one which consumes no net energy. Its an office that uses very little energy, then has some form of renewable energy to generate all the power it requires.

With current off the shelf solar technology, presuming little or no shading, its possible to get around 100 kWh  of energy per year per square meter of solar panels at latitudes of around 40 degrees, more in sunny locations at lesser lattitude. For a single storey building, with a roof covered with solar panels, and little shading, keeping office energy consumption to 100 kWh/m2 is easy, and in fact I’ve audited quite a few small offices that are nothing special but only use in the order of 100 to 120 kWh/m2. But a grid connect solar system nowdays costs in the vicinity of  $700 to $1,000 per square meter, which is pretty  expensive, so there are very few zero net energy offices in existence.

Aggressive energy conservation and use of off the shelf technology (like skylights) can mean that office energy consumption is kept down to somewhere between 30 to 50 kWh/m2, meaning only half the roof needs to covered with solar panels, or allowing for some shading. For example our office uses only 30 kWh/m2/year, but is shaded in winter, we could make it energy neutral now just by covering around 2/3rds of the roof in solar panels.

So it is possible now, in 2009, to have a zero net energy office, but its not easily affordable, yet. And if your office is 3 storeys or higher, its becomes very hard to achieve no matter what your budget.

Technological advances however, are happening rapidly and I believe that by 2020 a zero net energy low-rise office may be affordable. And importantly this should be achievable by retrofitting an existing office building, with no need to especially construct a new building. Some of these technological changes are:

  • The emergence of LED lighting. Assuming by 2020 we have LED lighting of around 200 lumens per watt. Allowing for some daylighting, and good use of task lighting, it may be possible to have annual lighting use less than 8 kWh/m2/year.
  • Computer efficiency improvements. Assuming that with thin client architecture and high efficiency monitors by 2020 an office PC uses 15 watts, and that a 200 watt server can then serve 30 clients, computer energy use would be around 3 to 4 kWh/m2/year.
  • There are many likely pathways for HVAC, which will depend on climate. A likely pathway for temperate climates is 100% fresh air HVAC systems, with air to air heat exchangers, but also using legacy internal ducting to allow high flow full economy cycles. Fans will be highly efficient, and heat pumps will have high efficiencies at a range of loading conditions, with the conditioning of air separated from ventilation to lower fan energy use. Couple this with light weight retrofit phase change materials (PCM) to provide thermal mass (eg plasterboard with encapsulated PCM), white roofs (where there are no solar panels), glazing treatments and new insulating membrane technologies to improve the thermal performance of the building. Seal the building well, and combine with good use of sensors and intelligent control all of which limits HVAC energy use to say 15 kWh/m2/year.
  • Miscellaneous loads: high efficiency fridge at say 150 kWh/year; near zero standby loss hot water system; high efficiency multi function devices, totalling say 4 kWh/m2/year.

This will result in total office energy use of around 30 kWh/m2/year.

With aggressive energy conservation occupants should be able to to get down to say 15 to 20 kWh/m2/year.

Assume solar panel efficiency is more than double current efficiency and the installed price per watt of a grid connect system is one third of the current cost. This will provide 260 kWh/m2/year at a cost of say $500 per square meter.

A single story unshaded office where aggressive energy conservation is practiced will then need only 8% of its roof covered with solar panels, at a cost per square meter of building area of only $40.

A three storey half shaded office building would need most of its roof covered.

It should be possible to have a 7 storey building energy neutral if unshaded and the roof is covered with solar panels. Of course if additional solar panels can be added to walls it should be possible to get even taller energy neutral buildings.

By 2020 the net zero energy low-rise office building should be easily affordable, and in fact it may well be standard good financial practice to convert existing office buildings to energy neutral ones. So even building owners with no interest in acting to slow climate change will have energy neutral buildings. And most low rise office buildings then – whether they are 100, 50, or 1 year old –  could be energy neutral.

I say “should” and “may” because I still have some doubt as to whether a couple of the technologies that modify the thermal performance of a building –  particularly PCMs, and retrofit membrane’s that improve its insulation properties – will be affordable. But then again with focus a lot can change in 11 years, and as more of us demand better energy performance from our buildings I believe that this will spark the innovation needed to make zero net energy office buildings common place.

You can help make this a reality by acting now to make your building more efficient. Do what is affordable now. Then repeat regularly - technology is now advancing quickly. You’ll create the demand that will drive the innovation that will create the technology that will make energy neutral buildings common place.