COST-EFFECTIVE SUSTAINABILITY€¦ · (Sample ability to review optimization on/off/on, Zamil DCP, Middle East) CASE STUDY: District Cooling Plant on) With Optimization Without Optimization

Easter Regional Conference

Presented by

Charlie Szoradi1

COST-EFFECTIVE

SUSTAINABILITY

Energy & Environment Committee – 7/29/2019

2

Contents:

• Background • Insights from Overseas• Energy Saving LED Lighting• Controlled Environment Agriculture• Air Conditioning Optimization• Hydrothermal Carbonization• U.S. Cleantech Job Creation• Performance Contracts

3

Charlie Szoradi - Background

Architect and Energy Professional with three decades of focus on cost-effective sustainability

Masters of Architecture - 1993Architecture BS - 1989

4

Insights from Overseas

Author of Learn From Looking

In 2010, Independence LED Lightingmoved its manufacturing from China to Southeastern Pennsylvania. One of the first BAA Complaint Producers:

JOBS

6

Energy Saving LED Lighting

Example: Custom Engineered for State Correctional Facilities(No Glass or Aluminum that can be “weaponized”)

15 Watt LED tube vs 32 Watt Fluorescent tube

53% Energy Savings

Annual Savings: $8Installed Cost: $16Payback Time: 2 YearsLongevity: 5 to 15 years(subject to amount of daily use)

2017 Market Tipping Point: LED Crosses Over Other Lighting%

of

Tota

l Mar

ket

Incandescent = Filament Lights

LFL = Linear Fluorescent Tubes

CFL = Compact Fluorescent Lights

LED = Light Emitting Diodes

Source: McKinsey Global Lighting Market Model; McKinsey Global Lighting Professionals Consumer Survey

It’s time to change your remaining lights to LEDs

7

2017

2019

2019Payback Under 2 Years

8

Lum

en

s /

Wat

t an

d $

Do

llars

2019 Payback Performance: LEDs Deliver Favorable Returns

Efficiency has increased and cost has decreased. Future improvements are

significantly less dramatic moving forward than over the past 10 years.

Mindset Challenges: A) “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” B) “If we wait, LEDs are getting cheaper and better.”C) “We don’t have a budget for LEDs.”

Solutions for States: A) The maintenance cost is more expensive to wait.B) Offer more Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to see the technology improvements and lower costs.C) Ask for Performance Contracting with $0 upfront costs and payments on the savings.

9

The following sample Case Studies demonstrate the proven results.

U.S. Average: Only 15% of lights have been changed to LEDs

The Case Studies demonstrate the proven results



+ -

LEDs for Controlled Environment Agriculture

Indoor Farming:• Vegetables• Cannabis• Hemp

LED Grow LightsRenewable PowerSmart Sensors / IoTDC MicrogridsAquaponics

In 2019, the Energy Intelligence Center launched on the Northeast Corridor with technology initiated and proven in India. 10 years of proven Air Conditioning Algorithm Optimization

JOBS

16

Air Conditioning Optimization

• Buildings = 40% of US Energy Consumption• Air Conditioning and Ventilation = 20% to 40%• Optimization Savings = 15% to 40% without changing any

of the cooling equipment, impacting thermostat settings, having any downtime, or costing anything up front.

Payments are on the savings.

The ALGORITHM integrates with existing Building Management Systems (BMS) and is like “tuning” the air pressure on your car tires to maximize fuel efficiency.

Target Optimization

Baseline

0.980 kW/TR

(Sample ability to review optimization on/off/on, Zamil DCP, Middle East)

CASE STUDY: District Cooling PlantkW

/ T

R (

Ton

of

Re

frig

era

tio

n)

With Optimization With Optimization Without Optimization

Daily Savings: .186 kW/TR = 46,027 kWhDaily Savings at $.04 / kWh: $1,841Annualized Savings: $672,000 (Comparison 16.8 million kWh/yr at $.10/kWh = $1.68m)Energy Savings for this period: 17% (This facility has 25,000 Tons of chiller capacity)

Avg. without Optimization Avg. with Optimization

Avg. 0.7983

kW/TR

Savings: 18.5%

Avg. 0.8304

kW/TR

Savings: 15.3%

Avg. 1.0005

kW/TR

Excess Consumption 2%

Example of previous work by EIC’s CTO and CIO

(Sample of 9 ITC/Starwood Group Hotels – This one: Maurya in New Delhi, India)

CASE STUDY: LEED Platinum Hotel

Optimization impact in rising temperatures from March to May

Daily Savings: 2,275 kWh (Avg. across all three months)Daily Savings at $.09 / kWh: $204.75 (in spring e.g. March to May)Annualized Savings: $74,733 (higher with summer heat loads)Energy Savings for this period: 25% This is on an already LEED Platinum Hotel)

March 2012

4,381 kWh/day

April 2012

6,754 kWh/day

May 2012

8,586 kWh/day

May Savings: 3,742 kWh/dayApril Savings: 1,628 kWh/dayMarch Savings: 1,457 kWh/day

Da

ily k

Wh

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n



In 2018, SoMax BioEnergy brought the Food Waste to Fuel Technology from Germany to the US East Coast 20 years of proven Renewable Energy performance

JOBS

19

20

Hydrothermal Carbonization

The HTC “Reactor” is about the size of 40’ shipping container, and it is

significantly more efficient than anaerobic digesters.

Trash to Treasure: Food waste as well as human and animal

waste converts into electricity and fertilizer. (20% food waste in US)

(CNG = Compressed Natural Gas)(gge = gasoline gallon equivalent)

21

U.S. Cleantech Job Creation

Each of these examples of cleantechlighting, air conditioning, and food waste to fuel

create tens of thousands of jobs that are technical as well as “Ripple Effect” jobs in sales,

service, and support for Americans.

MADE in USA

22

Performance Contracting

Each of these technology categories come with financing that generates CASH FLOW POSITVE results.

CSG members can adopt new cleantech and lead by example.

23

THANK YOU

For a digital copy of this presentationContact: Charlie Szoradi

CEO, Independence LED Lighting and the Energy Intelligence [email protected] or [email protected]

Direct: 610-551-5224

24

APPENDIX(for Q&A referencing)

Start looking and learn from the looking, rather than looking for something.

Insights from Overseas

25

The following slides include a few sample sketches from 1,000s of drawings and 60,000 words of insights in the Learn from Looking book.

26

27

Community + City Life

28

Community + City Life

Public Transportation

29

Public Transportation

30

Local Micro-Manufacturing

3131

Local Micro-Manufacturing

Single Family Residential Form Factor and Land Use

3333

Single Family Residential Form Factor and Land Use

34

L E D L I G H T I N G

Clean-Tech

Opportunity

35

0

Sample LED Tech Trends: Innovation Across the Market

Deep Fin Aluminum for 24 x 7 Thermal Management

Elevated Diodes for Enhanced Beam Angle

Filament orMultiple Chip

on Board (MCOB) for A19

360° Omni Directionality

Replaceable Drivers for Modularity & Longevity

Cavity Back BR30s + Ballast

Compatible G24s for

Recessed Fixtures

36

0

Core Commercial LED Products: Save 50% or MORE

96 Watts20,000 Hour Life (7 years)

32 Watts100,000 Hour Life (30 + years)

Great for Light

Harvesting

For Troffers, before buying Ballast Compatible A, B, or A/B LED

Tubes consider LED STRIP KITS with External Drivers

Dimming: Typically NO

Change

Ballast to

LED Driver

Dimming: Typically YES

37

38

Analysis / Fixture Existing Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Tubes Tubes Tubes Strip Kit

Description

2'x4' Troffer w/ (3) T8

4' fluorescent tubes

at 32 watts each

(3) Type A 4' LED Tubes

"ballast compatible" at

14 watts each

(3) Type A/B 4' Hybrid LED

Tubes "ballast compatible"

and "direct wire" options

at 12 watts each

(2) 4' LED strips with

(Magnetic) backing and

self tapping screws +

external driver at 16

watts per strip

Watts 96 42 36 32

Directional Lumens 4,608 5,250 5,040 4,700

Annual Electricity Cost $35.94 $15.72 $13.48 $11.98

Annual Electricity Savings N/A $20.22 $22.46 $23.96

LED equipment cost N/A $30.00 $39.00 $44.00

Paybacktime in years N/A 1.5 1.7 1.8

Warranty in years 3 5 10 10

Savings over Warranty $202.18 $224.64 $239.62Dimming for Light Harvesting NO NO NO YES

Data variables for calculations

Weekly hours of illumination 60

Annual hours of illumination 3,120

Cost / kWh $0.12

Compare Performance

Ask your supplier/service provider for a Savings Analysis by Fixture

0

Key Considerations: Optics

WIDE Look for LEDs that maximize

the light output where

you need it most.

Save money by wasting less energy and review fixture cost relative to

useable output.

NARROW

39

0

Key Considerations: Photometrics

Look at usable light (foot candles) vs volume of light (lumens)

40

D I R E C T

C U R R E N TF o r L E D L i g h t i n g

a n d a d d i t i o n a l

e n e r g y s a v i n g s

41

42

Electricity is moved efficiently with Alternating Current (AC)

over long distances.

However, we’re wasting power with AC inside of buildings.

0

Key Considerations: Look at our Alternating Current System

Status Quo

AC Grid

AC Bus

DC storage

AC

DC

Common Building

Loads (80%DC)

ACDC

DC

AC

ACDC

ACDC

ACDC

AC

DC

AC

Typical

Conversion

Loss

DC

AC

4% to

8% Loss

2% to 10%

loss

4% to

8% Loss

4% - 8%

4% to

8% Loss

12% to

20% loss

15% to

20% loss

3% to 10%

loss

V

F

D

43

0

Key Considerations: Direct Current Options

Microgrid Approach

AC GridDC Bus

DC storage

DC

DC

DC / Semiconductor

Based Loads

DC

DC

• Higher Efficiency

• Minimal Conversion Loss

• Lower Operating Expense

• Safer

• Fewer Components

• More Reliable

• Less Real Estate

• Reduced Carbon Footprint

3% to 5%

loss

2% to 5%

loss

ACDCDC

ACDCDC

2% to 5%

loss

0% to 2%

loss

3% to 6%

loss

3% to 6%

loss

V

F

D 0% loss

ACDCDC

1% to 5%

loss

44

0

Key Considerations: Performance Results

Energy Use Loss avg. with AC Loss avg. with DC Net SAVINGS avg.

with Direct Current

Air Conditioning: (6%) (0%) 6%

Lighting: (16%) (4.5%) 11.5%

Computers: (17.5%) (4.5%) 13%

Elec. Vehicle Charge: (6.5%) (3%) 3.5%

Lighting Example:

Lighting typically accounts for about 25% of commercial energy use.

11.5% savings with Direct Current lighting on 25% = 2.8% property savings.

LED lights cut consumptions by 50%, making half of 25% = 12.5% property savings.

12.5% + 2.8% = 15.3% Total Savings for a property that retrofits with

LED Direct Current lighting.

45

Highlight Presentation

Energy Optimization for Commercial Cooling and Refrigeration

www.EnergyIntelligenceCenter.com

Contact: Charlie Szoradi, [email protected]: 610-551-5224

46

47

1: Property Owners and Managers face many choices when it comes to intelligent and cost-effective energy savings.

2: Climate control is typically the largest consumer of electricity, accounting for 40% - 60% of commercial building electricity consumption.

3: Upgrading commercial air conditioning and refrigeration systems has been expensive to date.

Problems to Solve:

48

Cost-Effective Solutions:

1: Our latest patent pending technology along with optional support services optimize chillers and cooling systems to create efficiencies without impacting thermostat settings and without generating any downtime or upfront costs.

2: We are pleased to offer ways to generate 15% to 40% savings without changing any of the cooling equipment.

3: We integrate with existing Building Management Systems (BMS) and Building Automation Systems (BAS) as well as provide optimization for facilities that do not have BMS/BAS.

We provide a family of optimization technology and services to meet the needs of a diverse range of facilities

49

PROVEN RESULTS: Optimization Highlights

Property Types

(included below to show range of

Installed Cooling Capacity

from 200 to 25,000 Tons)

Installed Cooling

Capacity (Tons)

Pre-Optimization

Annual Electricity

Consumption for

Cooling (kWh/Year)

Energy

SAVINGS

(kWh/Year)

Cost / kWh

Cost

SAVINGS

($/Year)

%

SAVINGS

District Cooling Plant 25,000 80,000,000 16,800,000 $0.04 $672,000 21.0%

Office Building 1,800 1,000,000 200,000 $0.12 $24,000 20.0%

Dairy 500 3,300,000 800,000 $0.09 $68,000 24.2%

Golf and Beach Club 200 2,500,000 1,000,000 $0.08 $80,000 40.0%

LEED Platinum Hotels for

ITC/Starwood Group:

Hotel 1: 1,680 3,100,000 930,000 $0.09 $85,846 30.0%

Hotel 2: 2,000 3,972,413 834,122 $0.13 $107,794 21.0%

Hotel 3: 900 2,430,000 558,636 $0.13 $72,193 23.0%

Hotel 4: 700 2,100,000 500,000 $0.13 $64,615 23.8%

Hotel 5: 800 2,211,665 637,147 $0.11 $72,537 28.8%

Hotel 6: 750 1,508,558 346,873 $0.09 $32,019 23.0%

Hotel 7: 900 1,604,360 270,005 $0.09 $24,924 16.8%

Hotel 8: 1,200 3,175,310 598,859 $0.10 $59,886 18.9%

Hotel 9: 600 1,590,739 452,670 $0.09 $41,785 28.5%

Totals for these projects with

the Average % Savings:23,928,311 1,405,599 24.5%

Performance Counts:

Examples of projects implemented by the Energy Intelligence Center's Chief Technology Officer and Chief

Programming Officer since 2011 across facilities with chillers including:

Trane, Carrier, York, and McQuay

50

Da

ily k

Wh

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n


Daily Savings: 1,065 kWhDaily Savings at $.08 / kWh: $85.20 (in spring e.g. May)Annualized Savings: $31,098 (higher with summer heat loads)Energy Savings for this period: 40%

(Sample month in Florida at John’s Island Club + new programming for Phase 2)

CASE STUDY: Golf and Beach Club

Without Optimization With Optimization

Avg. May 2,563 kWh/day

Avg. May

1,498 kWh/day


CASE STUDY: Luxury Hotel

(Sample optimization starting in fall and running through early winter)

Daily Savings: 6,509 kWhDaily Savings at $.09 / kWh: $585.81 (in Fall/Winter)Annualized Savings: $213,820 (higher with summer heat loads)Energy Savings for this period: 45%

Da

ily k

Wh

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n

Avg. October - February

7,664 kWh/day

Avg. September 14,173 kWh/day

Without Optimization With Optimization Without Optimization With Optimization



(Sample increases in efficiency as temperatures rise)

CASE STUDY: Energy use relative to outside temperature

Daily Savings: 500 kWh to 4,000 kWhDaily Savings at $.10 / kWh: $50 to $400 (facility with four 420 Ton chillers)Annualized Savings: $18,250 to $146,000Energy Savings for this period: 12% to 28% (subject to outside temperature)


2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

70 80 90 100

Chart Title

w/Algorithm w/out Algorithm

Da

ily k

Wh

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n

Avg. Daily Temperature (F°)

10,000

kWh/day

14,000

kWh/day

4,000

kWh/day

3,500

kWh/day

70° 80°

90° 100°


54

Sample On-Site Optimization

The following example is for a

700,000 sq ft Hospital in

Baltimore, MD(April 2019)

55

Chiller (Status Quo) Pre-Optimization

56

Sample Optimization Measure

Increase the Cooling Tower (CT) fan speed

(26.2 Hz) to reduce the Condenser Water Entry Temperature (CWET).

The small increase in energy cost creates a

larger reduction in the chiller energy consumption.

57

RESULTS: Chiller Post-Optimization

58

RESULTS: Data

Increase in Cooling Tower (CT) fan speed caused decrease in Condenser Water Entry Temperature (CWET) which in turn reduced the power consumption by 22% net.

Note: To determine CT Fan kW consumption at 40 addition Hz, we use the industry max of 60 Hz and 18 kW to start the calculations. Formula 1: (Old Hz/Max Hz)³ x Max Power = Old Power(26.2 Hz / 60 Hz)³ x 18 kW = 1.49 kWFormula 2: (New Speed/Old Speed)³ x Old Power = New Power(40 Hz / 26.2 Hz)³ x 1.49 kW = 5.3 kW

176 kW

133 kW

43 kW

18 kW

1.49 kW

5.30 kW

3.81 kW

39.49 22%

For the same Chiller TONs of 388

Net Saving of Power at Spot

CT Fan kW @ 60 Hz

CT Fan kW @ 26.2 Hz

CT Fan kW @ 40 Hz

Increase in CT fan kW

Chiller kW @ 28.2 Hz of CT Fan Speed

Chiller kW @ 40 Hz of CT Fan Speed

Chiller Power reduction

176 kW

133 kW

43 kW

18 kW

1.49 kW

5.30 kW

3.81 kW

39.49 22%

For the same Chiller TONs of 388

Net Saving of Power at Spot

CT Fan kW @ 60 Hz

CT Fan kW @ 26.2 Hz

CT Fan kW @ 40 Hz

Increase in CT fan kW

Chiller kW @ 28.2 Hz of CT Fan Speed

Chiller kW @ 40 Hz of CT Fan Speed

Chiller Power reduction

59

Energy Intelligence Center https://energyintell igencecenter.com/ Red = Min. for Assessment

Chief Technology Officer: Sri Chari [email protected] 414-350-1618

Contact to return Data Sheet: Charlie Szoradi [email protected] 610-551-5224

Sales Channel Partner:

Initial Data Collection Date:

Prospective Customer Company / website

Facility Name

Facility Type

Location

Prospective Customer Contact Name:

Contact Title:

Contact email:

Contact Tel:

Process Cooling: Yes/No Building Cooling: Yes/No

Refrigeration: Yes/No Other: ______________

DATA ITEM UNITS AMOUNT

Annual Hours of operation Hours

Annual electricity consumption kWh

Avg. electricity cost/kWh Cost/kWh delivered

Utility Company (for possible rebate/incentives) Utility Company

Annual electricity cost $

Approximate Conditioned area Square Feet

For Hotels (# of rooms) #

Number of Chillers #

Type of Chillers Air- or Water-Cooled

Total Installed chiller capacity Tons

Chiller #1: Tons/Manufacturer/Model # Tons



(More if appropriate)

BMS or BAS System (if existing) Type

Approx. % of total electricity use for cooling %

Operations staff #

Facility management Internal or External Contractor

Month kWh Cost ($)JanFebMarAprMayJunJul

AugSepOctNovDec

Total 0 0

Please provide kWh & cost by month for one year - or copies of electricity bills

Data Sheet for Level 1 Preliminary Assessment

Industrial Facilities, please specify cooling type:

Our solution starts with data

collection via this one-page Data Sheet, and we

provide a Level 1 Savings

Assessment at our cost.

Optimization: kW/Ton Relative to CWET & Chiller LoadingkW

/ T

R (

Ton

of

Re

frig

era

tio

n)

CWET 85° F

CWET 75° F

CWET 65° F

.90

.80

.70

.60

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10

.00

(Sample efficiency measure)

We reduce Condenser Water Entry Temperature (CWET) to the lowest permissible level within ambient conditions. This reduces the outlet pressure of the compressor, which reduces the compressor’s energy consumption. In addition, we provide many other measures, such as balancing chiller loads across multiple chillers, per manufacturer’s specifications, to lower the kW /TR.

Lower CWET and Lower % Chiller Loading = Lower kW / TR for ENERGY SAVINGS

Low

er

CW

ET

= Examples

lowest energy consumption at designated CWET and Chiller Loading

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Lower % Chiller Loading

61

OUR 5 STEP PROCESS

The length of each phase is subject to the complexity of the cooling system. The weeks below are based on averages from prior projects.

Development Time for Steps 1 through 5 = (approx 12 weeks) 3 months Post-Optimization Customer Utility Bill Review before First Payment: 3 monthsUpon Customer Satisfaction: Monthly savings share payment plan commences

Exis

tin

g C

on

dit

ion

Op

tim

izat

ion

Be

gin

s

Data Collectionvia Data Sheet

Savings Assessment Level 1 Report

Site Visit forInvestment Grade Audit +Performance Agreement

CustomProgramming Development, based on “Go” from Customer

Implementation and on-siteTesting

1 2 3 4 51 week 1 week 2 we 6 weeks 2 weeks

62

EXECUTIVE TEAM

The Energy Intelligence Center’s Executive Team includes the three founding partners, who are each seasoned energy professionals. Charles A. Szoradi (Charlie), Sridharan Raghavachari (Sri), and D.S. Ravishankar (Ravi) share the vision to provide cost-effective energy optimization. They each bring multiple decades of experience within their areas of focus.

• Business Operations, Channel Sales, and Marketing – Charlie (CEO)• Optimization Development Strategy – Sri (President and CTO)• Implementation and Programming Execution – Ravi (CIO)Bios: https://energyintelligencecenter.com/about-us/executive-team/

Sri Chari Charlie Szoradi D.S. Ravishankar Hands on for major projects

https://energyintelligencecenter.com/about-us/executive-team/

63

Charl ie SzoradiC h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r

Master of Architecture

ARCHITECTFocus: Energy Efficiency andSustainable DesignYears of Experience: 26+Projects Completed: 100+Speaking Engagements: 50+

64

Regional Engineering College

(REC) > National Institute of Technology (NIT) Tiruchirappalli

Compressed Air Energy Management Controller Central Cooling & Circulation Energy Management Controller

Multiple US Patents Granted

and Pending

MECHANICAL ENGINEERFocus: Energy Efficiency for Commercial & Industrial facilitiesYears of Experience: 46+Projects Completed: 80+C&I Energy Audits: 600+

Sri ChariP r e s i d e n t a n d C h i e f T e c h n o l o g y O f f i c e r

65

University of Karnataka, India

Founder and Managing Partner

of Fluid Controls and Systems,

Bangalore, India since 1994

Global Alliance Partner

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERFocus: Control and AutomationYears of Experience: 37+Automation Projects: 500+Energy Efficiency Projects: 18+

D.S. RavishankarC h i e f I m p l e m e n t a t i o n O f f i c e r

Commercial & Industrial End to End

Control Solutions

H O M E

E F F I C I E N C Y

Clean-Tech

Opportunity

66

Sustainable Smart House

Finished Kitchen /

Family Room

looking south west

68

SSi 4.0: Solar PV and Thermal Tank System for Radiant Floors, Domestic Hot Water, Electricity and Heat Pumps

69

70

Measurement is the Key to Management

Look for “green” initiatives that have the fastest payback for customers.

The ROI % on the following tables is based on Annual Savings / Added Cost

71

72

73

Documents

COST-EFFECTIVE SUSTAINABILITY€¦ · (Sample ability to review optimization on/off/on, Zamil DCP, Middle East) CASE STUDY: District Cooling Plant on) With Optimization Without Optimization