Principal Business Drivers
Competitive Positioning
Building owners and managers are always positioning their properties in comparison to other nearby similar properties. They understand that potential tenants look at many aspects of a building during the evaluation process. Site location is a not negotiable. For most, common areas are not negotiable. Build-outs can always be handled by allocating enough dollars to the work. Energy costs, traditionally, have been viewed as not manageable - until more recently. More potential tenants view energy as just another manageable cost. In point of fact it seldom is. The mechanical and electrical design of buildings is such that controlling HVAC, lighting and plug loads is very difficult. The need to control these costs just wasn't in the design criteria for building architects and engineers. And the added cost of providing the appropriate structure to support this flexibility was seldom, if ever, budgeted.
Today, however, tenants are asking questions about how they can control energy costs. Property managers are responding with so-called "green" leases. Cleaning materials made from organic chemicals are in vogue. A few scattered occupancy sensors turn overhead lighting on and off. Still, this approach isn't close to that needed for an effective green lease. Tenants want control and, for the most part, they don't have it in the buildings of today. Overhead lighting is often switched for entire floors. Is dimming possible? Not with conventional fluorescent systems. Air conditioning systems come to life early in the morning and run until late at night. Is there an alternative? No - not as long as building automation systems are installed and programmed to run as large multi-office zones. Positioning a building to use green leases requires a different approach. It requires is better understanding of how energy is used within a building. Most of all, green building market positioning requires physical changes to accommodate tenants looking for a green approach to their daily work environment. Solving this problem will be a challenge.
Energy Costs
Traditionally building automation vendors have cited energy costs as an an important manageable cost. Is it? Not when the property manager looks at the combined charges for running a building. A number of observers make the point that energy costs per se are a small and not very compelling component of building operating costs. History shows this is true. Cost containment efforts seldom continue as an integral part of daily management. One reason: energy costs are not readily visible. Another: it is very difficult to assign responsibility to individuals for containing and managing energy costs in tenant occupied buildings. (It might even be extremely difficult.) The usual maintenance staff motto is "no complaints, then everything must be OK."
Still, the cost of energy (more specifically electricity) continues to rise. Just as importantly, tenants know that it is rising. And they want to have some type of control over their energy costs. In a most first class leases, space rental costs often ranges from $18 to $25 per square foot. Energy costs, buried in these numbers, usually runs from $1.50 to $3.00 per square foot. As a percentage it is less than 10%. Why is such a small percentage of lease cost perceived as so important to tenants? Because that perception fits the way energy usage is believed to contribute to global warming, a modern way of life, conservation of resources and global competitiveness. In other words, it is not the cost of energy that is so interesting as the perception that energy is affecting our modern world.
Energy Shortages
If energy costs are only a small percentage of space lease costs, then what about energy availability? This is the big-dog lurking in the energy shadows. If a building loses it's source of energy, occupant productivity comes to a screeching halt. Fast. Instead of affecting the small $1.50 to $3.00 of energy costs, it immediately affects the $25 to $100 of productivity costs. Clearly outages are rare. But when they happen, buildings become immediately unusable. Property managers have no recourse. Or do they?
Every modern building has emergency generators to handle critical lighting and related electrical needs when an outage occurs. Seldom are these generators sized to handle lighting, plug and computer loads. Still, the ability to deal with shortages (temporary outages) is very important to all building owners and managers. So many building management teams are taking steps to protect their cash flow by working with tenants to have an effective energy management program ready to deal with shortages. These "energy plans" are an important driver in competitive positioning of a building for landlords as well as tenants.
Energy Mandates
There have been a number of rush-to-judgement mandates by governing authorities. Some government agencies have made declarations that coal-fired plants shall be converted to gas or, in some cases, completely shutdown. This leaves building owners and managers scrambling to meet energy requirements. Can modern buildings run on solar power? Not in 98% of today's buildings and certainly not at night without significant electrical storage. Mandates are draconian measures and require comparable responses. The answer is complex. On-site power generation, from gas-fired generators, can help reduce demand. Solar panels work on sunny days. But the cost of these options is well outside the normal investment boundaries of most commercial businesses. Utilities look at power plants over a 20 to 50 year life expectancy and factor costs appropriately. Clearly mandates are a radical and transforming initiative. Just as clearly building owners must deal with the added cost of supplementing their current energy sources with on-site energy generation and improved energy management. Building automation vendors are not well equipped to deal with these issues. Their revenue model relies on technology sales and on-going support.
They don't offer in-depth energy support, at least the kind needed to work within recent mandates. Another approach is needed.
Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency is linked to energy stewardship. While property managers are traditionally bottom-line driven, many tenants are also concerned about being good stewards of the resources provided to them. This activist approach has become more important as movies and slide presentations about global warming dramatize the unwarranted use of energy. Energy efficiency, especially with traditionally high energy usage equipment, like computers, has become a marketing opportunity for manufacturers. Where previous marketing efforts emphasized " 'Our Product' Inside", now they emphasize " 'Our Product' Efficiency Inside". Still, how are such products operated to leverage energy efficiency features? Not well, for the most part. Yes, the technology is there but it is not well utilized. More is needed to optimize energy efficiency. Why, for example, do buildings with a peak load of 1,000 kW during the day, have a 400 kW load at night? Where is this energy going? Does anyone know? Clearly there is an opportunity to improve energy efficiency and, just as clearly, tenants want support from their building managers in reducing energy usage. What's needed, then, are the enabling tools to make it happen.
Smart Grid Participation
The Smart Grid is coming. We read about it regularly. We think the word "Smart" is cool. But what does it mean - "Smart Grid"? How will building owners work with the Smart Grid? In fact, the Smart Grid provides a combination of advance energy metering along with timely information about how we use it. The Smart Grid is so smart that utilities may will use this technology to adjust energy prices as often as every five minutes. Is this possible? Certainly. Count on it in certain areas of the country where energy sources have been curtailed by mandates, generating plant shortages, or global-warming concerns.
If the Smart Grid is so smart, then can it manage building energy consumption too? Certainly it can. But utilities seldom venture beyond the building meter unless by invitation. Building managers must plan on working with and within the boundaries of the Smart Grid. Like it or not, utility charges will move from fixed levels to dynamic pricing. Current thinking will move from static energy use planning to dynamic energy use management. Where are the tools to deal with this change? How will the current infrastructure of building automation vendors, mechanical and electrical contractors, and even utilities, work with the Smart Grid? The answer is they will need physical and intellectual tools to make it all happen - that haven't been invented yet.
Demand Response Participation
To deal with peak energy shortages, utilities and grid operators have developed Demand Response as an initiative. Demand Response contracts with building managers to reduce peak demand when requested and to do so for specific amounts of reduction. In most buildings emergency generators run to offset demand loads. In others, air conditioning is restricted to reduce demand. But approaches to reduce demand by restricting air conditioning conflict with the need for it during the warmest days of the year. Restricting air conditioning is not cool - it's hot. People get irritated. Yet, if occupants understand the reason for the restriction their tolerance will improve, at least for the short time it is restricted.
Will Demand Response end soon? By many accounts the answer is yes. Demand Response as a business is expected to transform into a general demand reduction business. Yet this too would require a change in Demand Response incentives, contract arrangements, property management methods, tenant and occupant participation, and even green leases. There is no simple solution to reducing building demand for energy. Quite frankly the tools are not yet available to transition to an automated demand reduction program.
BAS Vendors
For years building automation vendors have held building owners and property managers in a contractual vise designed to squeeze fees at every opportunity. Customer's don't mind paying for value received. However, most building owners seldom view their building automation vendors as providing good value for the fees charged. Given an opportunity, then, changing the competitive options where building automation vendors have an effective competitor is important to reducing the costs of improving building operating efficiencies. Clearly there is a need to bypass building automation vendors and their real stranglehold on access to building HVAC operating methods.
IP Integration
One of the most interesting alternatives to proprietary approaches for equipment communications is emerging from the IT industry. The emphasis is shifting to use the Internet Protocol for managing all building technology. This includes security, elevators, lighting, and HVAC. Historically technology communications has used custom protocols to link managers to its operations. This has meant that the equipment from one vendor will not inter-operate with that of another. Vendors use these protocols to deny competitors from replacing their equipment. Low first-bids can lock a building into long-term maintenance contracts that are worth far more than the installed gear. This is the promise of IP integration. Get rid of custom protocols and switch to ubiquitious IP. But it's not easy.
The cost of IP devices has plummeted in recent years. Connections are very inexpensive. In a sense, IP integration is the holy grail of modern building communications. If it can be achieved, then building managers will be able to cut operating costs, now buried in the lease charges, and reduce their dependence on specialized training for proprietary protocols. This is not just a minor annoyance either. Custom protocols drive operating costs up. Circumventing custom protocols will drive operating costs down. That's what's needed.
Energy Awareness
Energy awareness is both a concept and a call to action. Conceptually we understand that energy is consumed for all types of devices from cell phones to TVs. Only in recent years, however, has energy awareness become a call to action. Homeowners can translate their personal energy awareness to a change in energy habits. Turning off lights when not needed is a form of energy awareness action. But it's not possible to turn off lighting in most buildings. Cubicles with personal lighting can be managed but not the overhead lighting. For that matter, it usually isn't possible to turn off plug loads in most cubicles. A plug strip can help but there some devices, like computers, that are usually not turned off completely. Which devices are candidates for personal energy management? It's often hard to determine unless you are technically aware of the impact it could have.
Energy awareness as a call to action is generally limited. What's needed, then, is a channel for energy awareness. A way to share ideas with others both within and outside the company. Moreover, energy awareness usually does not extend to common building energy usage such as space air conditioning and overhead lighting. The quest to provide personal space energy management may forever be only that - a quest. Further, the number of individuals who are personally interested in energy awareness as a concept may well be many more than those who consider it a call to action. How, then, will energy awareness - the concept - be translated into a call for action for the vast majority of building occupants? Where are the tools to make this happen?
Energy Cost Allocation
If the cost of energy can change dynamically, as is expected, then how will energy cost be allocated internally to a building? Is the shipping department more important than the executive offices when it comes to energy usage? For that matter, can energy costs even be assigned to a group of individuals or area of a building? More practically, tenants will want the ability to control their energy costs and, to make it happen, will need sub-metering that reasonably reflects their energy usage. It is entirely possible that tenants will make their own deals with energy suppliers and leave building managers out of the negotiations completely. If this is possible then it will probably happen. Will it be widespread? Certainly it will take awhile. But there is no denying the movement to internal building cost allocation and the increase complexity of building infrastructure to make it happen. Where, then, are the tools to smooth the way?
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
Demand Response with On-site Generation
Limiting building electrical demand is crucial to reducing peak electrical grid demand. Conventional methods often use brute-force techniques to shutdown important building environmental support equipment. But there's a better way - especially when combined with on-site generation and buildings clustered together to share the demand reduction work load.
This paper was presented at COBEE, The First International Conference on Energy and Environment, at Dalian China, July 13-16, 2008. The conference was organized by Purdue University, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Tianjin University and Dalian Technical University of China. (See the call for papers announcement.)
This paper provides another view of how to combine buildings into a unified demand reduction group and leverage on-site generators to optimally reduce grid electrical demand. It uses the results from analyzing commercial office and high school buildings in the Cincinnati area. It answers the question "Can an effective Demand Response program be developed that minimizes interior building environmental impact while leveraging on-site generators?" The answer is "yes". Find out why. Read more.
This paper was presented at COBEE, The First International Conference on Energy and Environment, at Dalian China, July 13-16, 2008. The conference was organized by Purdue University, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Tianjin University and Dalian Technical University of China. (See the call for papers announcement.)
This paper provides another view of how to combine buildings into a unified demand reduction group and leverage on-site generators to optimally reduce grid electrical demand. It uses the results from analyzing commercial office and high school buildings in the Cincinnati area. It answers the question "Can an effective Demand Response program be developed that minimizes interior building environmental impact while leveraging on-site generators?" The answer is "yes". Find out why. Read more.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
You're Going To Take My Job Away, Aren't You.
Some 30 years ago I was walking with the director of facilities through the library basement at Vanderbilt University. A custodian was working nearby and, as the director and I stopped to talk, I felt someone grab my arm firmly near the shoulder. "Your going to take away my job, aren't you." Whoops, where did this come from? The custodian had a very firm grip and very worried expression on his face as he stood there looking at me. "Why, no I'm not", I managed to stammer out.
I was shaken by the incident. The custodian walked away with his push broom and an uncomfortable demeanor. He was clearly not happy and certainly not comforted by my words. The director managed to smooth over the incident and we continued our building tour. But how do you ever forget someone accusing you of trying to take their job away, especially when you are only there to install an energy management system?
This was the mid-70's and energy management was brand new. It was hot! Long car gas lines convinced a lot of people that they needed to take action on the building energy front. (The two are not connected but I was still happy they thought so.) IBM was telling their customers that they had a computer which would do the job and my company, Monitortek, was their partner in making it happen. Why did this custodian think energy management would take his job away? Why did the concept threaten him so? What did he know that I didn't about energy management?
Getting through college
Later that day the director started spinning stories for me (he was a fantastic story teller). It was near the end of the Great Depression when jobs were very hard to find (25% unemployment and at least that number under-employed.) He was a poor boy from Tennessee who wanted to attend college. Somehow the dean found out about him and was determined to see he got through school - some way, some how. The problem was finances. His family was poor and there was no way he could attend what was widely regarded, he said, as a rich white girls school.
So the dean put him to work as a custodian. He was to sweep floors and do the other odd jobs that custodians normally handle. The custodial work force was all black. He was the poor white boy working with the black custodians at a rich white girls school. I noted the interesting contrast.
He was an outgoing young man and made friends with the custodial staff quickly. They taught him the ropes so he could earn his pay. Then finally, after four years, graduation day arrived and there he was, walking with the other seniors along an interior Vanderbilt road near the power house. They were marching to the outdoor ceremony location on the green lawn down the hill. It was a warm, early summer day. The black custodians were all gathered alongside the road waiting for their friend to come marching by.
It wasn't long before they saw him coming. They started making noise about him in that graduation gown. And he couldn't disappoint them. For the entire time he was on campus he was poor. Shoes were hard to pay for. The war was on and employment had picked up for the country. But the working situation for his comrades in the custodial ranks was basically unchanged.
Here he was, a poor boy about to receive a university degree from a premier learning institution. How should he react to their cheers? What should he say? As he marched by them he couldn't resist the temptation to show them he had not forgotten his roots; that he was not "above" them but only someone who was lucky enough to get a degree. Suddenly he raised his gown and jumped up in the air with his bare feet sticking out from underneath. Yep, he had no shoes on! The custodians just howled. He was one of them. He was still a poor boy who made good. And he didn't forget his friends of the past four years.
What was he thinking?
So what was that custodian thinking that caused him to grab my arm? Was it part of the educational gap between us? Did I realize the impact a custodian could have on our new energy management system? I did not. I was too inexperienced. I grew up in a town of factory workers where management would regularly "take names, and kick butt" if you didn't cooperate adequately. Where the UAW ruled with an iron hand in contract negotiations over threat of a huge strike. Where workers were treated like chattel. And management thought they were all-powerful. But they weren't. It took Edward Deming and the Japanese to show them how to do it right.
From my perspective it was all about technology. Whoever installed the most effective technology would do the best job in controlling energy. I was certain of it. In the end, however, I was wrong. It was and still is about empowering people to use the technology available to them.
The U.S. temperature controls industry didn't have the equivalent of the Japanese to kick their collective butt. At least it didn't until upstarts like my company came along. We began to puncture their huge, over inflated bags of wind. But it was only a pinprick. We were a gnat to them, which they periodically swatted or captured into a jar by buying us or our technology when they had to. So their actions further convinced me and my peers that the solution to energy management was technology.
But like the Vanderbilt director it really was about the people who made the buildings run smoothly. It's the little actions that can save energy every day of every week. The problem is identifying those actions and training people how to use them for saving energy. It's really about energy awareness within the context of the engineering impact small actions can have.
I was shaken by the incident. The custodian walked away with his push broom and an uncomfortable demeanor. He was clearly not happy and certainly not comforted by my words. The director managed to smooth over the incident and we continued our building tour. But how do you ever forget someone accusing you of trying to take their job away, especially when you are only there to install an energy management system?
This was the mid-70's and energy management was brand new. It was hot! Long car gas lines convinced a lot of people that they needed to take action on the building energy front. (The two are not connected but I was still happy they thought so.) IBM was telling their customers that they had a computer which would do the job and my company, Monitortek, was their partner in making it happen. Why did this custodian think energy management would take his job away? Why did the concept threaten him so? What did he know that I didn't about energy management?
Getting through college
Later that day the director started spinning stories for me (he was a fantastic story teller). It was near the end of the Great Depression when jobs were very hard to find (25% unemployment and at least that number under-employed.) He was a poor boy from Tennessee who wanted to attend college. Somehow the dean found out about him and was determined to see he got through school - some way, some how. The problem was finances. His family was poor and there was no way he could attend what was widely regarded, he said, as a rich white girls school.
So the dean put him to work as a custodian. He was to sweep floors and do the other odd jobs that custodians normally handle. The custodial work force was all black. He was the poor white boy working with the black custodians at a rich white girls school. I noted the interesting contrast.
He was an outgoing young man and made friends with the custodial staff quickly. They taught him the ropes so he could earn his pay. Then finally, after four years, graduation day arrived and there he was, walking with the other seniors along an interior Vanderbilt road near the power house. They were marching to the outdoor ceremony location on the green lawn down the hill. It was a warm, early summer day. The black custodians were all gathered alongside the road waiting for their friend to come marching by.
It wasn't long before they saw him coming. They started making noise about him in that graduation gown. And he couldn't disappoint them. For the entire time he was on campus he was poor. Shoes were hard to pay for. The war was on and employment had picked up for the country. But the working situation for his comrades in the custodial ranks was basically unchanged.
Here he was, a poor boy about to receive a university degree from a premier learning institution. How should he react to their cheers? What should he say? As he marched by them he couldn't resist the temptation to show them he had not forgotten his roots; that he was not "above" them but only someone who was lucky enough to get a degree. Suddenly he raised his gown and jumped up in the air with his bare feet sticking out from underneath. Yep, he had no shoes on! The custodians just howled. He was one of them. He was still a poor boy who made good. And he didn't forget his friends of the past four years.
What was he thinking?
So what was that custodian thinking that caused him to grab my arm? Was it part of the educational gap between us? Did I realize the impact a custodian could have on our new energy management system? I did not. I was too inexperienced. I grew up in a town of factory workers where management would regularly "take names, and kick butt" if you didn't cooperate adequately. Where the UAW ruled with an iron hand in contract negotiations over threat of a huge strike. Where workers were treated like chattel. And management thought they were all-powerful. But they weren't. It took Edward Deming and the Japanese to show them how to do it right.
From my perspective it was all about technology. Whoever installed the most effective technology would do the best job in controlling energy. I was certain of it. In the end, however, I was wrong. It was and still is about empowering people to use the technology available to them.
The U.S. temperature controls industry didn't have the equivalent of the Japanese to kick their collective butt. At least it didn't until upstarts like my company came along. We began to puncture their huge, over inflated bags of wind. But it was only a pinprick. We were a gnat to them, which they periodically swatted or captured into a jar by buying us or our technology when they had to. So their actions further convinced me and my peers that the solution to energy management was technology.
But like the Vanderbilt director it really was about the people who made the buildings run smoothly. It's the little actions that can save energy every day of every week. The problem is identifying those actions and training people how to use them for saving energy. It's really about energy awareness within the context of the engineering impact small actions can have.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Behavior Changes Are The Ticket
The only way to reverse heavy energy usage in this country is through behavior modification. Simply stated everyone must become more conscious of energy usage. This includes better managing or eliminating the small electric heater under a desk as well as the huge quantities of reheat being consumed in the air delivery system above the ceiling.
Will turning out the lights help? A little. Adjust the thermostat up or down? Show me a sizable commercial office building that allows the tenants to adjust the temperature setpoint. In an open-bay area it simply can't happen. Thermostat adjustments are the Jimmy Carter solution.
So really there are two classes of behavior modification needed: (1) occupants and (2) building support staff. Both can help. The occupant, working from a desk with a heater running underneath to keep warm, needs to turn it off (at least most of the time). The building maintenance staff, operating the HVAC equipment, needs to change the way they treat the system operation. Both need to change their behavior.
And it's more than simple behavior changes too.
The building maintenance staff needs to understand that the desk heater is a symptom of an HVAC system or building envelope problem. This is the problem that needs to be corrected before the heater can or will be turned off. Remove the cold drafts and you remove the need to waste additional energy.
So behavior change for the building maintenance staff is one that moves from being complaint-driven to one where they are energy-driven. Solve the energy problem and you will probably solve the complaint at the same time. (I have seen offices where almost every women is wearing a sweater on a hot summer day - the Jimmy Carter solution in reverse.)
The solution - behavior modification - is clear. What isn't so clear is how to drive it.
At least part of the answer is in using energy-feedback to each occupant and maintenance person. Everyone needs to know where they stand in the energy equation of their building and the world at large. They need quantified numbers, in dollars and pounds of CO2, about the impact their behavior has on the environment - especially on coal burning power plants.
This is not a question of being a do-gooder. You don't have to believe Al Gore or any other climate doomsday sayer. You can continue to contribute to the save-a-forest effort somewhere on the planet. This is really about numbers. Everyone needs to know the numbers even if expressed in the impact of Hummers on (or not on) the road.
More on this in the next blog.
Will turning out the lights help? A little. Adjust the thermostat up or down? Show me a sizable commercial office building that allows the tenants to adjust the temperature setpoint. In an open-bay area it simply can't happen. Thermostat adjustments are the Jimmy Carter solution.
So really there are two classes of behavior modification needed: (1) occupants and (2) building support staff. Both can help. The occupant, working from a desk with a heater running underneath to keep warm, needs to turn it off (at least most of the time). The building maintenance staff, operating the HVAC equipment, needs to change the way they treat the system operation. Both need to change their behavior.
And it's more than simple behavior changes too.
The building maintenance staff needs to understand that the desk heater is a symptom of an HVAC system or building envelope problem. This is the problem that needs to be corrected before the heater can or will be turned off. Remove the cold drafts and you remove the need to waste additional energy.
So behavior change for the building maintenance staff is one that moves from being complaint-driven to one where they are energy-driven. Solve the energy problem and you will probably solve the complaint at the same time. (I have seen offices where almost every women is wearing a sweater on a hot summer day - the Jimmy Carter solution in reverse.)
The solution - behavior modification - is clear. What isn't so clear is how to drive it.
At least part of the answer is in using energy-feedback to each occupant and maintenance person. Everyone needs to know where they stand in the energy equation of their building and the world at large. They need quantified numbers, in dollars and pounds of CO2, about the impact their behavior has on the environment - especially on coal burning power plants.
This is not a question of being a do-gooder. You don't have to believe Al Gore or any other climate doomsday sayer. You can continue to contribute to the save-a-forest effort somewhere on the planet. This is really about numbers. Everyone needs to know the numbers even if expressed in the impact of Hummers on (or not on) the road.
More on this in the next blog.
China Energy - That Giant Sucking Sound
China represents a potential energy and environmental menace to the world and especially the U.S. It's building a new power plant each week. Coal is the principal source of energy (no surprise here) with natural gas a growing future fuel. China is a country where a population almost equal to that of the United States lives on less than $1 per day (300 million+). Millions are moving to the cities every year to find jobs - jobs driven by energy.
China is a country roughly equal in size to the U.S. with 4 times more people. And the times they are a-changing as it finally catches up with the rest of the world as an industrial power house. It will surpass the U.S. in the next two years as the world's biggest source of CO2 emissions. In fact, since 2001 China has increased its emissions more than every other industrialized country in the world combined.
Where will the energy to supply this economy come from? Answer: the same sources that the U.S. uses. This almost doubles the demand for energy at a time when supplies are running at or near peak output. Clearly this type of demand cannot be sustained without some type of limitations for each country.
Is that each country? Yes - U.S. citizens just don't realize it yet. The typical U.S. resident equates energy supplies to the price of auto gas. That's only a small part of the equation; a complicated intermix of oil, gas, natural gas and coal with some nuclear thrown into the mix. Not until we have another gas shortage will the public wake up.
With buildings consuming about 46% of the total energy used in the U.S., clearly building energy consumption needs to be better managed. No matter how many new buildings are constructed in the next 10 years, they offer an almost unmeasurable impact on total building energy consumption. The 46% number is not going down soon - unless drastic action is taken.
So the big question is: what action will measurably reduce building energy consumption?
There's one answer: only behavior changes can significantly reduce energy usage.
See the next blog in this series....
China is a country roughly equal in size to the U.S. with 4 times more people. And the times they are a-changing as it finally catches up with the rest of the world as an industrial power house. It will surpass the U.S. in the next two years as the world's biggest source of CO2 emissions. In fact, since 2001 China has increased its emissions more than every other industrialized country in the world combined.
Where will the energy to supply this economy come from? Answer: the same sources that the U.S. uses. This almost doubles the demand for energy at a time when supplies are running at or near peak output. Clearly this type of demand cannot be sustained without some type of limitations for each country.
Is that each country? Yes - U.S. citizens just don't realize it yet. The typical U.S. resident equates energy supplies to the price of auto gas. That's only a small part of the equation; a complicated intermix of oil, gas, natural gas and coal with some nuclear thrown into the mix. Not until we have another gas shortage will the public wake up.
With buildings consuming about 46% of the total energy used in the U.S., clearly building energy consumption needs to be better managed. No matter how many new buildings are constructed in the next 10 years, they offer an almost unmeasurable impact on total building energy consumption. The 46% number is not going down soon - unless drastic action is taken.
So the big question is: what action will measurably reduce building energy consumption?
There's one answer: only behavior changes can significantly reduce energy usage.
See the next blog in this series....
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Intelligent buildings sell like pigs fly - only more slowly
Paul Ehrlich's piece in the latest issue of Intelligent Buildings Today is off the point. In fact, the article only makes the usual blah-blah points about why a building owner should buy into the "intelligent building" concept. These points don't match reality. Let's look at a few of them.
"It is not acceptable to consider investing in intelligent attributes of a project, unless you can prove that there will an acceptable return on investment."
Here is a fact: you can't prove anything to a building owner. The best you can do is get them to buy into your concept. The usual "proofs" to building owners are usually offset by the owner's reality-check to your face. Attractive ROIs look good but they are no better than the spreadsheet that manipulated the numbers. Owner's simply won't believe them. Need "proof". Look around at what type of building is installed with so-called intelligent controls: schools, hospitals, colleges and other owner-occupied buildings. These building owners are driven by a different set of motivations. They don't need "proof". Developers? For the most part, forget them. The vast majority do their intelligent building math with a different type of calculator.
"Adding intelligent features to a building will allow it to operate more efficiently, reducing both energy usage and expense."
Maybe. Probably not. There are precious few buildings that are operated more efficiently just because they have intelligent features. Why? Because there are precious few facility managers who have the time to learn the system features let alone use them. Fact: so-called intelligent features really boil down to a PC on the facility managers desk with some clever (or meaningless) graphics that tell him "yep, it's running" or "nope, it's not running". The controls industry, as a whole, has done very little to improve the facility operators experience. And that's over the 30 years that variations of intelligent controls have been on the market. Very little.
"...intelligent buildings provide tools to optimize the staffing and operation of the building..."
Agreed. The tools are often there. But they are tools that a high school freshman can learn in one afternoon not the tools that a facility manager needs for sustained management effort. Why are these tools, for the most part, dumbed down? (OK, so some of you will take me task for this but just look at the tools supplied over the years to the building owners. In a word, they "suck". They are either too technical or too complicated to navigate or too something to be more than just barely useful.)
"improved building systems and technology...providing a better experience for the occupant."
Maybe. But probably not much detectable improvement. DDC controls are way beyond pneumatics. Other problems often overshadow intelligent controls like bad air distribution and uneven supply air temperatures. The truth is most owners want the best for their occupants but they are driven by other forces such as first cost, marginal engineering, internal politics and a host of other factors. It's very hard to make a financially justifable argument that better DDC controls will lead to better occupant experience and that will lead to more productivity and reduced cost. The reverse can be proven through everyday experience - "this building is always too cold in the winter and too warm in the summer" so I was distracted all day. But when a building operates as it should, the occupants shouldn't even notice their surrounding environment. It should just "be there". Show me the building owner who is convinced the building occupants are more productive and that yields huge gains. Name one!
Developer-owned building "energy savings is seen by the tenant and not the building owner."
Show me the tenant who says "boy, I'm sure glad my energy cost saved me $0.30/sf this year out of my $18.00/sf lease cost. I feel a lot better about this lease now." It just doesn't happen. You also never see the developer sitting down with the tenant and saying "how about those energy savings!" Duh. Developers are a very hard sell on this point. Get ready to have this argument blown off.
"Buildings... with improved technology, comfort, safety, and productive space is more desirable to tenants."
Maybe. Who makes the decision for the tenant? Someone who knows buildings? Probably not. Usually the financial or legal person on the tenant's staff makes the final decision. Technology is important, you say? Sometimes. Tenants often like to hear that they can make an adjustment to their thermostats within bounds. But how many thermostats actually work this way? Few, I suggest. What about "safety". What about it? Are you suggesting a building is safer with DDC controls over a conventional building? I hope not. More "productive space"? Prove it. You can make an emotional argument to the prospective tenant, as a good salesman would, but where is the proof? Maybe a productive study would be helpful. But this entire line of thinking is only marginally useful.
"The expectation is that when a tenant has to select between similar buildings, the one that is intelligent will tend to get better occupancy rates and improved rents..."
If you are an experienced tenant, I would agree. If the tenant is focused on space colors, office layout, wall textures or carpeting they won't get it. They simply won't buy "improved rents". It just never happens. Tenants expect the HVAC system to work properly. Period. If it doesn't they will call the landlord and complain - everyday if necessary. Then they will leave as soon as the lease is up. So what. The next gullible tenant will buy into the space as wonderful, blah, blah, blah....
OK, some of this does not apply to big tenants who buy lots of space. But even the so-called sophisticated tenants will get caught up in issues like access from the Interstate or exterior appearance. Better rents are probablematic, at best.
Look at the typical building based industry averages table (1). Here the energy savings is expected to be 12% with operational and other savings totalling another 19%. (That's an incredible 29% savings - no building owner is going to buy that high a number.) Actually the energy savings is low, if the building is properly managed. There could easily be another 8 to 15 % in energy savings. Most buildings are a basket case after a few years. Energy creep is all over the place. Operational savings, at 10%, is a bit of stretch too. Why? Because maintenance is assigned by man power. Some buildings get half a "man" while others get a whole "man". They don't get "man" percentages. Where are you going to get a 10% "man" improvement? Pull a "man" off a building for 1 hour a day to work on another building? I don't think so. Building owners won't look at this argument seriously. Here's why.
First they have a hard enough time finding anyone capable of keeping a building in good maintenance condition. Good people are really hard to find. A good building maintenance person, or crew, will easily stay up with tenant complaints. A marginal team will lose 10% every hour.
Second, the overwhelming majority of buildings (perhaps every single building in the world) is complaint-driven. No complaints - no problems. Got complaints? Then let's fix the HVAC (or whatever) problem so we never get another complaint from that tenant again. Let's keep the boiler on all summer, day and night, that ought to do it. No, complaint-driven building maintenance will never save 10% of anything let alone operating expenses.
Paul doesn't have it right. It's not about selling ROI. It's about selling job sustainability - for the building owner and supervisory staff. The question is: will installing an intelligent building controls system save me from complaints, expensive outside maintenance charges and whining tenants.
Everytime I see the expression "intelligent building" I'm reminded of the HAL 9000 computer as Dave was pulling memory cartridges from it's core "Dave, I'm losing my mind. Dave... Daaave...."
What this world needs is a modern DDC-equipped building run by intelligent people.
More on "job sustainability" in another post. There's more to this.....
"It is not acceptable to consider investing in intelligent attributes of a project, unless you can prove that there will an acceptable return on investment."
Here is a fact: you can't prove anything to a building owner. The best you can do is get them to buy into your concept. The usual "proofs" to building owners are usually offset by the owner's reality-check to your face. Attractive ROIs look good but they are no better than the spreadsheet that manipulated the numbers. Owner's simply won't believe them. Need "proof". Look around at what type of building is installed with so-called intelligent controls: schools, hospitals, colleges and other owner-occupied buildings. These building owners are driven by a different set of motivations. They don't need "proof". Developers? For the most part, forget them. The vast majority do their intelligent building math with a different type of calculator.
"Adding intelligent features to a building will allow it to operate more efficiently, reducing both energy usage and expense."
Maybe. Probably not. There are precious few buildings that are operated more efficiently just because they have intelligent features. Why? Because there are precious few facility managers who have the time to learn the system features let alone use them. Fact: so-called intelligent features really boil down to a PC on the facility managers desk with some clever (or meaningless) graphics that tell him "yep, it's running" or "nope, it's not running". The controls industry, as a whole, has done very little to improve the facility operators experience. And that's over the 30 years that variations of intelligent controls have been on the market. Very little.
"...intelligent buildings provide tools to optimize the staffing and operation of the building..."
Agreed. The tools are often there. But they are tools that a high school freshman can learn in one afternoon not the tools that a facility manager needs for sustained management effort. Why are these tools, for the most part, dumbed down? (OK, so some of you will take me task for this but just look at the tools supplied over the years to the building owners. In a word, they "suck". They are either too technical or too complicated to navigate or too something to be more than just barely useful.)
"improved building systems and technology...providing a better experience for the occupant."
Maybe. But probably not much detectable improvement. DDC controls are way beyond pneumatics. Other problems often overshadow intelligent controls like bad air distribution and uneven supply air temperatures. The truth is most owners want the best for their occupants but they are driven by other forces such as first cost, marginal engineering, internal politics and a host of other factors. It's very hard to make a financially justifable argument that better DDC controls will lead to better occupant experience and that will lead to more productivity and reduced cost. The reverse can be proven through everyday experience - "this building is always too cold in the winter and too warm in the summer" so I was distracted all day. But when a building operates as it should, the occupants shouldn't even notice their surrounding environment. It should just "be there". Show me the building owner who is convinced the building occupants are more productive and that yields huge gains. Name one!
Developer-owned building "energy savings is seen by the tenant and not the building owner."
Show me the tenant who says "boy, I'm sure glad my energy cost saved me $0.30/sf this year out of my $18.00/sf lease cost. I feel a lot better about this lease now." It just doesn't happen. You also never see the developer sitting down with the tenant and saying "how about those energy savings!" Duh. Developers are a very hard sell on this point. Get ready to have this argument blown off.
"Buildings... with improved technology, comfort, safety, and productive space is more desirable to tenants."
Maybe. Who makes the decision for the tenant? Someone who knows buildings? Probably not. Usually the financial or legal person on the tenant's staff makes the final decision. Technology is important, you say? Sometimes. Tenants often like to hear that they can make an adjustment to their thermostats within bounds. But how many thermostats actually work this way? Few, I suggest. What about "safety". What about it? Are you suggesting a building is safer with DDC controls over a conventional building? I hope not. More "productive space"? Prove it. You can make an emotional argument to the prospective tenant, as a good salesman would, but where is the proof? Maybe a productive study would be helpful. But this entire line of thinking is only marginally useful.
"The expectation is that when a tenant has to select between similar buildings, the one that is intelligent will tend to get better occupancy rates and improved rents..."
If you are an experienced tenant, I would agree. If the tenant is focused on space colors, office layout, wall textures or carpeting they won't get it. They simply won't buy "improved rents". It just never happens. Tenants expect the HVAC system to work properly. Period. If it doesn't they will call the landlord and complain - everyday if necessary. Then they will leave as soon as the lease is up. So what. The next gullible tenant will buy into the space as wonderful, blah, blah, blah....
OK, some of this does not apply to big tenants who buy lots of space. But even the so-called sophisticated tenants will get caught up in issues like access from the Interstate or exterior appearance. Better rents are probablematic, at best.
Look at the typical building based industry averages table (1). Here the energy savings is expected to be 12% with operational and other savings totalling another 19%. (That's an incredible 29% savings - no building owner is going to buy that high a number.) Actually the energy savings is low, if the building is properly managed. There could easily be another 8 to 15 % in energy savings. Most buildings are a basket case after a few years. Energy creep is all over the place. Operational savings, at 10%, is a bit of stretch too. Why? Because maintenance is assigned by man power. Some buildings get half a "man" while others get a whole "man". They don't get "man" percentages. Where are you going to get a 10% "man" improvement? Pull a "man" off a building for 1 hour a day to work on another building? I don't think so. Building owners won't look at this argument seriously. Here's why.
First they have a hard enough time finding anyone capable of keeping a building in good maintenance condition. Good people are really hard to find. A good building maintenance person, or crew, will easily stay up with tenant complaints. A marginal team will lose 10% every hour.
Second, the overwhelming majority of buildings (perhaps every single building in the world) is complaint-driven. No complaints - no problems. Got complaints? Then let's fix the HVAC (or whatever) problem so we never get another complaint from that tenant again. Let's keep the boiler on all summer, day and night, that ought to do it. No, complaint-driven building maintenance will never save 10% of anything let alone operating expenses.
Paul doesn't have it right. It's not about selling ROI. It's about selling job sustainability - for the building owner and supervisory staff. The question is: will installing an intelligent building controls system save me from complaints, expensive outside maintenance charges and whining tenants.
Everytime I see the expression "intelligent building" I'm reminded of the HAL 9000 computer as Dave was pulling memory cartridges from it's core "Dave, I'm losing my mind. Dave... Daaave...."
What this world needs is a modern DDC-equipped building run by intelligent people.
More on "job sustainability" in another post. There's more to this.....
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
The Great BACnet debate
I've watched the postings on the BACnet list server for the past two years and have not seen much debate - until recently. It seems that the ugly truth for all protocols is now reaching the discussion stage. The question is: how are proprietary features in different vendor's BACnet products to be handled with regard to interoperability? Why are there proprietary features at all? How can a voluntary protocol management process succeed in getting agreement among vendors?
Well it's tough. Just look at the internal debate now going on. It's always been fasinating to watch various vendors jockey for position in the HVAC and PLC product world. Back in the late '80s General Motors decreed that all of their plants will go with MAP (Manufacturing Automation Protocol) and their suppliers had better do the same - because this is a "new" world and GM is leading the charge. Well MAP flopped. It was expensive. It was clumsey. It was built on a broadband backbone that was very inappropriate. OK, back in the '80s there really wasn't another approach. Ethernet also was clumsy. Big coax cable. Small coax cable. And there was very little 10BaseT around. Prices were relatively high for whatever option you chose.
But MAP was never to happen. It was an imposed solution. Clearly there was a problem in the GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. But the problem was not of the same magnitude in their supplier plants (except for what is now Delphi and Visteon). But that is not the case for BACnet.
BACnet has a chance to lay out a communication scheme that provides true interoperability. I doubt, however, that it will ever happen. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
The most recent proposal by David Fisher to provide a type of XML file to describe customer properties is on target. Maybe David can lead the charge and make it all happen. He certainly is trying.
The problem is that the building automation industry is chasing a technical problem (which, granted, may be the only type of problem they can chase) while customers don't care. That's right. They really don't care. So what that a few proprietary variables or properties cannot be seen through the standard protocol description. Virtually 99% of all customers don't care. They can barely manage their buildings with the tools they have now! They are overloaded with management issues and people details.
No. The BACnet discussions are needed but not sufficient. This topic needs to be explored more.
Well it's tough. Just look at the internal debate now going on. It's always been fasinating to watch various vendors jockey for position in the HVAC and PLC product world. Back in the late '80s General Motors decreed that all of their plants will go with MAP (Manufacturing Automation Protocol) and their suppliers had better do the same - because this is a "new" world and GM is leading the charge. Well MAP flopped. It was expensive. It was clumsey. It was built on a broadband backbone that was very inappropriate. OK, back in the '80s there really wasn't another approach. Ethernet also was clumsy. Big coax cable. Small coax cable. And there was very little 10BaseT around. Prices were relatively high for whatever option you chose.
But MAP was never to happen. It was an imposed solution. Clearly there was a problem in the GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. But the problem was not of the same magnitude in their supplier plants (except for what is now Delphi and Visteon). But that is not the case for BACnet.
BACnet has a chance to lay out a communication scheme that provides true interoperability. I doubt, however, that it will ever happen. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
The most recent proposal by David Fisher to provide a type of XML file to describe customer properties is on target. Maybe David can lead the charge and make it all happen. He certainly is trying.
The problem is that the building automation industry is chasing a technical problem (which, granted, may be the only type of problem they can chase) while customers don't care. That's right. They really don't care. So what that a few proprietary variables or properties cannot be seen through the standard protocol description. Virtually 99% of all customers don't care. They can barely manage their buildings with the tools they have now! They are overloaded with management issues and people details.
No. The BACnet discussions are needed but not sufficient. This topic needs to be explored more.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
What is was, was "Energy Management"
The term "Energy Management" has been kicking around for the past 30 years, at least. In the mid '70s everyone was talking "Energy Management". All you needed was a the latest and greatest HVAC controls technology from "big time temperature controls company" to make it happen. Small guys swooped in to grab a piece of the market but they, almost to a company, couldn't sustain themselves.
Over time "Energy Management" became energy management, a lower case expression. It was only part of the solution to saving energy in buildings. First you needed a decent temperature control system then you could implement and energy management program using these computer-based tools. Enlightment... eventually.
But look around today. Where is there a building that really implements energy management? There are very few. Maybe there are none. Only pretenders.
The problem is this: you can't conserve energy if you don't measure it. More precisely you can't be sure you are saving energy if you don't measure it accurately. You need to account for weather, obviously, occupancy, changes in construction, and changes in use. So how many buildings track actual energy usage, day by day or week by week?
This is the issue to be explored in this blog. The energy used and energy conserved must first be measured. Only then can the success of energy management programs be evaluated.
(The title may remind those of you old enough to remember the Andy Griffith audio skit "What it was, was football".)
Over time "Energy Management" became energy management, a lower case expression. It was only part of the solution to saving energy in buildings. First you needed a decent temperature control system then you could implement and energy management program using these computer-based tools. Enlightment... eventually.
But look around today. Where is there a building that really implements energy management? There are very few. Maybe there are none. Only pretenders.
The problem is this: you can't conserve energy if you don't measure it. More precisely you can't be sure you are saving energy if you don't measure it accurately. You need to account for weather, obviously, occupancy, changes in construction, and changes in use. So how many buildings track actual energy usage, day by day or week by week?
This is the issue to be explored in this blog. The energy used and energy conserved must first be measured. Only then can the success of energy management programs be evaluated.
(The title may remind those of you old enough to remember the Andy Griffith audio skit "What it was, was football".)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)