#14 By: Leticia Ozawa-Meida, April 17th, 2014 04:02
The information provided by @arnoldc is great! Thank you!
If several equipment around Queens (labs and studios) do not need to be switched on over this long weekend, perhaps we can try to do an Easter switch-off and see if there are any changes in our baseload. Unfortunately, perhaps it is too late today to request the collaboration of all staff in Queens to do it. If we cannot do it this long Easter weekend, we can try to see if it can be done in another weekend and see what happens.
#15 By: Graeme Stuart, April 17th, 2014 04:11
Note that the baseload is very persistent, Queens consistently consumes at least 40kWh every half hour - that's an average of 80kW constant load.
Sometimes this increases to 100kW
Over Christmas 2013 it dropped to about 70kW.
Right now, during the Easter holidays, we are at about 90kW.
Every kW of baseload costs about £876 per year (based on 8760 hours @ 10p per kWh). The entire 80kW baseload equates to about £70,000 per year. Most of this will probably be unavoidable but we could probably save £10,000 very easily on Queens baseload alone.
@DMU_Energy is 10p reasonable?
I have also posted a chart of the smartspaces Queens electricity model if you're interested.
#16 By: Leticia Ozawa-Meida, April 17th, 2014 09:55
These potential cost (and energy) savings highlight the importance of trying to understand better the main causes of the high base load.
It is relevant that we understand better what the most energy-intensive equipment is and where they are located as well as their use patterns (perhaps some of this equipment needs to be running all the time, such as the main distribution boards - I think). But it is also important that staff and students turn off their equipment and lights when they leave their offices, classrooms, lecture theatres and labs.
As an example, the Central Library of Leicester City Council has a very low electricity base load. Through a conversation with staff in the Library, the person told me that staff usually follow defined procedures related to switching off lights and equipment in different areas of the library when they close the building. Although there are several differences with the Central Library and Queens Building related to size of the building, use patterns (opening and closing times), and equipment (mainly lights and computers but not air conditioning), I think that the Central Library is a very good example that through awareness and cooperation of all users, we could reduce the high base load in Queens.
Perhaps through the energy/cost savings, the university could replace old equipment with more energy efficient equipment for our building.
#17 By: Chris A, April 17th, 2014 12:50
The CTS does seem like it consumes a lot of power, there a multiple rooms full of high performance machines (HP Z400 workstations/mac pros(but the interesting thing is the macs shut down during the night and all come on at 9am in one go whereas the windows machines just stay on constantly) which people use for video editing etc. There used to be an AVID room that had Z800 workstations in them (those were meant for doing video editing as well as they have intel Xeon and 2 screens each) and that room was always boiling, but over the summer they moved them over to bede island and now all they have is some (basic(ish)) HP workstations (i5 machines, single screens and the room is a lot cooler now). Within DemonFM, we have to leave some computers running as they do the playout through the night etc and we also have a server that stores music for the station, a server for the website and there will be a few more for running other services within the CTS anyway. A bit long winded but hope it makes some sense haha
#18 By: Richard Snape, April 17th, 2014 19:48
It is relevant that we understand better what the most energy-intensive equipment is and where they are located
Yes - absolutely
it is also important that staff and students turn off their equipment
and lights when they leave their offices, classrooms, lecture theatres and labs
Well, maybe... As a general habit, it's got to be better than nothing. But... The problem is - until we know what's in the baseload, no amount of behaviour change is going to shift it. Even with the big switch off campaigns (e.g. Christmas 2012), only a relatively small amount was shifted if I recall correctly. We really need accurate schematics and sub-metering.
If we try to get people to switch off the odd light and computer when they may not make a significant change you really risk making people think it's all pointless. @arnoldc shows the folly of (my) guessing and hearsay. Also his comments illustrate that there has been a bit of change in the computer equipment in the last year, yet no corresponding change in baseload - which might lead us to think that these are not the major baseload.
I don't know. 80 kW seems very large. If there are 10 or 20 500W spotlights left on all night, that's 5-10kW, 300 computers on Standby is about 15kW porentially (at 50W each). I found a list of equipment power consumption for on/off/standby. Don't know how reliable it is, but indicative.
It still feels like there's some big heating / cooling load we're missing. We need the drawings and to work out expected baseloads vs actual, in my opinion.
#19 By: PWE, April 23rd, 2014 05:03
Ok, so the costs per kilowatt hour (for Queens) is 9.417 p/kWh day and 6.384 p/kWh at night (7 hours). Then add VAT at 18.65% (you don't want to know why it's this rate, believe me!), Carbon costs (CRC) work out to about 0.86 p/kWh. I have 23 sub-meters in addition to the fiscal meter in Queens, and the baseload is absent from all of them (deep joy!). This is something I will take forward over the next few months with engineers and contractors around the Estates Group. I would advise against people accessing distribution boards themselves, or attaching any monitoring equipment to them without Estates consent. I would hate it if anyone got hurt or any damage occurred. I am happy to hear all suggestions and will keep you in the loop.
#20 By: Richard Snape, April 25th, 2014 04:56
Absolutely - second that. We mustn't open any estates electrical equipment, no matter what.
That's quite amazing. I was talking to @carlholland about how hard it was to actually track loads in another even smaller building too. Having worked from 50 year old schematics in a previous job - I feel your pain!
#21 By: PWE, April 28th, 2014 07:16
Things appear to be settling on the CTS area from all comments received thus far. There is very little building plant in Queens generally, just two air handling units in addition to the new over door heaters. There is some electrical testing being carried out in queens over the next couple of months which may give us some better clues as to which distribution boards the load in on.
#22 By: Richard Snape, May 23rd, 2014 11:42
I note there is fixed wire testing overnight during a 10 day period (25th June - 4th July). Can we keep tabs on which distro boards are isolated when to give us clues as to what's in the baseload (e.g. which distro boards were isolated when we see big drops).
What say you, @DMU_Energy, @carlholland, @lozawa00 and @ggstuart?
P.S. I found a copy of the as-built electrical drawings for Queen's. I note there's one particularly large distro board (isolator rated at 630A per phase) which could be a good place to start looking - the large capacity implies that a large load is anticipated there (or, at least, was when the building was built). It is DB 7-1-25 located in room 1.37. A quick skim of the prints suggests there's not an individual likely suspect connected to this board, but it seems to feed a lot of the ground floor including the machines and lighting.
#23 By: PWE, May 28th, 2014 05:15
Already on that one Richard! Well done for finding the drawings!
#24 By: Richard Snape, May 28th, 2014 06:04
@DMU_Energy I thought you would be
#25 By: PWE, June 26th, 2014 04:10
Well, the results from night 1 of the Fixed Wire testing in Queens are in. I'm not sure these are much help. I've compared last night with the previous three Wednesdays (and other days around the 25/06 in other graphs) and yesterdays profile was low all day, not just at night. What I can't see is a dip and then a recovery, which I was initially expecting. However, I am also thinking that the technicians in Queens are probably going to make sure all equipment likely to be affected by the testing is shut down on a controlled manner before they go home, and then they will come in early the next day to turn it back on again. This means that we will see the dip possibly around 5pm and then the baseload will remain low all night and come back up the next day. I was initially excited about the drop from 4pm onwards, thinking this was equipment being shut down for the testing, but Monday and Tuesday are very much the same. Check back tomorrow for the next instalment...
#26 By: Leticia Ozawa-Meida, June 26th, 2014 04:44
Thank you very much for posting the graphs and the explanation. It is really intriguing for a lot of us around here. Please keep posting them until all the fixed wiring testing is completed. One question, the graph says "night 1 testing" was done in the Substation, is it possible to know which parts of the building are shut down or was it the entire building? Sorry, if my question is silly. If it is done by parts, can we know which wings or floors are we talking about?
#27 By: Richard Snape, June 26th, 2014 05:00
I wouldn't be too disheartened, this is great. Personally, I wouldn't expect to see huge amounts on most switch offs, but then see a significant drop for one or two (maybe that's just what I'd hope for in trying to isolate the baseload). I guess if they're all like this, we have to think harder.....
#28 By: PWE, June 26th, 2014 05:28
@lozawa00 - Hopefully Graeme's sheet that he has asked the contract manager to complete as the tests are done will be able to provide us with an idea as to what areas are being tested each night, we can then compare this with the data. The big area of interest is the CTS area (where the studios, etc are). This is being tested on 1/7. However the whole building blackout is also being carried out on the same night. Hopefully we will be able to see the CTS being shut down before the blackout test.
#29 By: PWE, July 2nd, 2014 06:00
So, we have found 25% of the baseload last night. I'm waiting for confirmation of where the contractors were testing, but this is the first real move in the baseload that we can see since the testing started. My assumption is that this is associated with shutting down (part) of the CTS area (where the radio studios are based). No sign of the blackout though?!?!
I'll come back to you once I have confirmation.
#30 By: Graeme Stuart, July 2nd, 2014 04:58
The testing on 1st of July has had a huge impact on the baseline of queens building. It even looks like some of the impact has persisted until this morning. However, the baseline is still very high. Some loads have been removed and not come back whilst others have come back. We may see other loads come in during the day and the rest of the week. How does this relate to energy wastage and opportunities for efficiency gains?
It will be interesting to see if some savings persist until the weekend.
#31 By: Richard Snape, July 2nd, 2014 05:41
A careful correlation with what actually took place last night might yield some really interesting results. In particular - I'd ask whether the planned "whole building off" occurred last night and, if so, when and for how long? Because the baseline change looks pretty constant, but a long way from zero. If the whole building was supposed to be off - what's the meter feeding that is not on the switch??...
#32 By: PWE, July 3rd, 2014 04:08
Most things had come back on by 10am the next day (2nd). The whole building off did occur, but the test must have been for only a few minutes as it doesn't register on the data. The meter I'm using is on the primary LV panel, which is where the building was isolated from. Something also happened last nigh. I am hoping to go through the certificates issued by the contractor to know where they were and when (unfortunately they weren't given Graeme's sheet to complete!).
#33 By: PWE, July 3rd, 2014 04:10
Looking at the graph on the previous post, it is possible that some things may not have come back on. Time will tell!
next page →