Machine2Enterprise

Energy Conservation Manual

I have been collecting several books on energy conservation.  Of all of these books, for larger operations like a commercial building, the "Energy Efficiency Manual: for everyone who uses energy, pays for utilities, designs and builds, is interested in energy conservation and the environment (Energy Efficiency Manual)" by Donald R. Wulfinghoff is a great resource.

This is a how-to and source book for energy conservation. It lets you improve efficiency and save money in all types of buildings and plants, ranging from individual houses to commercial buildings to large institutions and industrial plants.

It's for everyone who uses energy, pays for utilities, manages property, operates energy systems, designs, builds, and values conservation and the environment. It provides a comprehensive set of critical factors:

• "Ratings" and "Selection Scorecards" identify your best conservation opportunities.
• "Traps & Tricks" ensure success.
• "Economics" estimate savings and costs.

If you operate or own a building/residence, use this book to help you....

• Cut Energy Costs and Protect the Environment
• Improving Comfort, Safety, And Reliability
• Find the Right Improvements for Your Building or Plant
• Reference Notes broaden your knowledge of utility rates, high-efficiency motors, variable-speed drives, environmentally safe refrigerants, lighting technology, energy management computers, people sensors, and many other vital subjects.
• Avoid Expensive Mistakes. Each Measure includes Traps & Tricks to guide you around pitfalls that can spoil your work. You get tips gained from practical experience that minimize effort, save cost, and protect your savings in the long term.

Energy Efficiency Manual

Cisco, Enterprise Integration, & Senate S1434

Cisco seems to be getting into the building business.  They have some new initiative called Cisco Connected Real Estate.  I assume its a strategy to sell more network hardware.  I saw a recent article in Government Computing News titled GSA paves way for IT-based buildings.

The article describes how leading government agencies are converging IT systems with Facilities systems, leading to a major reduction in energy reduction.  Trent Blair from the State of Missouri is quoted saying “Putting this kind of system in place costs us 60 cents to $1.20 per square foot,” Blair said. “It reduces energy costs by 10 to 20 percent and maintenance costs from 10 to 60 percent. And it does that without a major change in the building infrastructure.”   Blair goes on to talk about the millions in cost they are going to eliminate.

These folks in Missouri seem to have their act together.  I have never seen any government agency take such a bold and smart step forward.  Those close to the interoperability conversation have known for years that IT can drive major energy savings.  Missouri seems to get it.   I wonder how to get others to get it?

There is a senate Bill floating through congress pushing for EPSC/ESCO efforts on all government buildings.  Titled S1434, it requires all government entities implement energy savings efforts with a payback of 15 years or less.  At $4-5/sq foot for traditional building upgrades, it is hard to believe that the government has enough money to do all those modifications using traditional techniques of new equipment, windows, lights, etc.  As many of us know, those steps often don't realize their projected target savings.  In contrast, the State of Missouri seems to have an approach that that can be quickly implemented and yields a big savings without changing a chiller or a window.

So, which do you think will win out, the $0.60/sq ft Missouri solution or the $5/sq foot traditional solution.  Missouri seems to be about energy reduction.  S1434 seems to be about jobs.

Either way, its nice to see Cisco in the game.

EPAct: Shoot first and ask questions later

The law of unintended consequences applies to the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  In a rush to save energy, facilities are buying new more efficient equipment without really knowing why.  They know it will save money, but they really don't know how much.  The Energy Service Contractors (ESCO) are promising savings as usual, and its a good business case, but is it enough?  The very nature of an ESCO contract converts a multi year payback and into an annual expense.

Is savings only possible over multiple years?  What should we do to plan for innovation.  If I install a new chiller that is 20% more efficient and it has a 8 year payback, what should I do 4 years from now when someone comes up with another chiller that saves yet another 20%?

LED lights are coming on strong as an even more practical solution over fluorescent lights.  But under EPAct everyone is replacing their current lights with an 8+ year payback schedule.  So, despite innovations in LED, LED market adoption will hit the brick wall of the Fluorescent installed base for several years to come.  It is common in technology evolution that late movers get the most benefit - wireless service in China is better than the US, because China adopted 4th generation technology as their first platform, where the united states needed to transition from Generation 1, to 2, to 3, and finally 4.

The problem is even bigger when one considers CO2.  Big energy consuming assets have an even longer payback schedule.  As noted by Texas A&M researchers, as well as others, most HVAC equipment in buildings is improperly sized (Often providing excess capacity).  EPAct does nothing to encourage owners to assess their building performance.  EPAct motivates owners to replace their existing equipment with similar sized more efficient equipment with long paybacks. 

A huge problem emerges in 2008 if CO2 limitations are enacted.  A larger portion of the national infrastructure will have been recently upgraded, to marginally more efficient mis-sized equipment, under EPAct.  As new CO2 legislation comes forward pushing more aggressive limits on energy/CO2, owners will be only partially through their EPAct payback cycle.  They will be stuck with 6-8 years of payback and pressure to drive yet more savings.  An impossible position.....

So, what do we do?  The problem is complex and there is no easy answer.  But, it is clear that no one should change the equipment in their building with out a data driven assessment of their current energy needs.  EPAct is a shoot first, ask questions later approach (replace equipment and see what happens).  Owners should follow a "Ask questions first, then shoot" approach.

Businesses run on real time information.  Wal-Mart knows where every orange is in their supply chain.  With that knowledge they can roll up information to help manage inventory, product placement, marketing, etc.  The same is true in operations.  Texas A&M and others have taught us that 20% of the building energy use is do to misconfigured buildings (controls and equipment sizing).  With real time monitoring systems that pinpoint energy usage and system status owners know where the "Oranges" are all the time.  Owners can then build a battle plan for energy savings - focused first on the highest savings + quickest payback projects first, moving down to the more capital intensive projects over time.  There is strong evidence that tuning up the control system alone can reduce energy 10-20%.

Getting real time information on building performance seems daunting.  Big controls vendors that push their turn key solutions, using their proprietary solution, create a huge barrier.  The life cycle cost of living with a single vendors proprietary solution is huge.  Beyond the fact that acquisition cost will go up over time once the vendor has your infrastructure locked in, it locks out competing technologies for years.  Conversely, if an owner chooses an open architecture approach, it is possible to get a real time information system installed and paid for on the first year of savings.  So, whats the road-map?

1. Never buy a system from a vendor that says "You need to by my controller and my applications" - Never!
2. Bacnet, Modbus, Lon are not interoperable standards (they are close) - you need a vendor with web services (XML, SOAP, etc)
3. Change your procurement standards so that vendors need to demonstrate their systems are interoperable with your existing applications.  Require that your application vendors (Maximo, Archibus, SAP, etc) demonstrate compatibility with multiple control systems.  Expect to implement an independent middle-ware solution - for an enterprise, companies like Gridlogix, for smaller buildings with a less comprehensive solution look at Gridlogix, Richard Zeta or Tridium
4. Implement a real time monitoring system and fix errors in your control system before undergoing energy related capital improvement programs - essentially get the energy signature for your building first.
5. Don't let the company (ESCO) doing your energy audit bid on the implementation work.
6. Continuously monitor building performance

So what does this all cost and save?  An open architecture system installed along with a comprehensive energy audit and linked to your maintenance system will cost somewhere around $0.50-$1.00/square foot.  This solution will reduce energy usage 10-20% and maintenance costs 20-60%, an annual savings of somewhere between $0.50-$1.20/square foot.

Real time information, meaningful energy savings, and near term payback without replacing a chiller.

Ask questions later, and maybe you won't need to learn how to shoot.

Building 2.0

Automated buildings has an article on something called Building 2.0.  From what the article describes it seems some real thought is finally going into the next step of intelligent buildings.

The whole concept of integration has become confused by protocols and standards.  I was at a conference about integration and it seemed the majority of the audience was more worried about ziggbee vs. wired sensors, nothing about energy savings.  It would be ridiculous for me to order a computer from dell and ask them what kind of capacitor they had in the power supply, but for some reason in the world of buildings we want to fight over some aspect of the technology rather than focus on providing better answers for customers.

The Building 2.0 movement seems more about objectives.  It includes a change in terminology:

Building 1.0	Building 2.0
BacNet	WebServices
Data	Information
HMI	Fusion
Facility	Enterprise
First Cost	Life Cycle Cost
Integration	Interoperability
Smart Buildings	Smart People

Perhaps there is a conceptual overlap with all things 2.0 oriented (Web 2.0 etc).  The Building 2.0 story feels more aspirational, while still being practical.  Nothing is locked in.  To me, integration is less about protocols (protocols being a necessary detail) and more about integrating Enterprise applications in with devices in a manner that reduces cost of energy, maintenance, operations ,etc.

Production vs. Demand

Whatever you think of Al Gore, I believe everyone now wonders if they have a responsibility to do something about emissions and energy usage.

I wonder - how much energy waste is there in the world?  Searching journals I find find that experts believe between 10-35% of our energy bill is due to wasteful behavior - poorly manged systems, lights left on, no setback etc.

As folks talk about Carbon taxes, carbon trading, ice caps melting, etc, if makes me wonder what the next best step is?  Well if 10-35% of our energy usage is due to waste, then I am tempted to address waste before I start trying to figure out how to sequester CO2.

So, how do we get rid of waste?  If you wanted to lose weight, would you weigh yourself once a month to see how you were doing on your diet?  No!  So, why do we wait until the end of the month to see our energy bill?  And, if we looked at our bill could we even understand what we did to make it so high or low?  No...

What people need is a sense of cause and effect - "It must have been the donut that caused me to gain 1/2 lb."  How do we get cause and effect?   Real time information generate from M2M devices that feed into enterprise systems.

I believe the simple step of showing time series energy usage and emission data superimposed with thermostat set points would help people understand the cost of their decisions.  With the facts strring them in the face, they would hten more likely make the changes required to eliminate waste. 

Building Interoperability

According to the National Institute of Standards (NIST) , more than $16B is wasted each year in the US because the software used to design, build and operate buildings is not well integrated.  This lack of interoperability results in expensive changes in the construction process, and poor maintenance in the operation phase.  I suspect they have just scratched the surface in terms of cost.

NIST really is just aiming at maintenance and support.  In parallel to NIST's thinking, I believe there is a similar cost in energy.  Many buildings do not have the real time systems in place that can correlate building design intent, real energy costs, and the condition of equipment over time.  Based on the retro commission market, it may be fair to say that poor building system interoperability might account for 20% of the energy cost in a facility.  I looked it up, a 20% improvement in facility energy cost would reduce the nations energy bill by more than $20B .

This means lack of interoperability might account for a waste in excess of $36 B per year.  That is a big number to me.

Its about information stupid!

Why do people keep talking about protocols and data?  Why do they keep talking about wireless?  Why do they keep talking about the standards definition of what a light switch can do?  Would you explain the value of email by discussing what kind of hard drive you had?

Real decision makers worry about what needs to be done to lean up the enterprise and deliver a better product to the customer.  They don't care about how it is done, other than wanting an open solution.  They care about the money.  They care about customer satisfaction.  Real deicsion makers don't go to the Zigbee, Lon, or Bacnet standards meetings :-(.

Standards meetings are important and as an industry we have a lot of great people working on tough issues - all but one: "Show me the money"

Folowing the lessons of the IT industry, true savings probably comes from convergence at the information layer.  What's the information layer?  Its the point at which data from the building control system, lighting system, security system and ERP system are integrated and presented in a clear way so that a smart person can make a smart informed decision.

I know of an integration company that used one of those middle-ware products to connect into a family of high schools.  The facility manager wanted to have total visibility into operations.  The product was perfect.  It linked to all the protocols, systems and devices without incident.  Amazingly....  It linked in so well that the customer did not quite believe it was working, but ultimately he believed he had 100% visibility.  He had the data at its most granular level of detail.  So, that is good right?  Sort of....

What happened next is a circuit breaker failed somewhere on one of the systems, that led to other systems not operating, and ultimately 100's of alarms showing up in his "Data Console".  He was more likely to think he was under attack then to realize that one circuit breaker had failed.  He had data!

He needed information.  He needed a solution that knew how the chiller, fans, VAV, etc were all interconnected to the same core system.  He needed an information layer that could determine root cause.  At the end of the day, his job is to go fix the circuit breaker, not reverse engineer the building automation system.

A system that sets off 100 alarms is a data system.  A system that tells the user the circuit breaker failed is an information system.  100 alarms is a data paralysis.  1 circuit breaker alert is a productive information system.

Its about information stupid!

Smart Buildings?

I keep hearing about Smart Buildings.  The notion being that a building can be smart enough to fix itself, manage its own energy, or somehow optimize itself.  Why don't we talk about smart people? 

The reality in life is that people are smart, buildings are dumb.  Buildings will always be dumb (sorry to the coalition of under achieving buildings).  In the late 90's corporations realized that computers were not going to make companies more competitive.  Competition and efficiency comes from smart people using computers to make better decisions.  And the people running buildings are smart!

So what is missing?  Why do we still talk about building inefficiency?  Why do we talk about the notion of a smart building? Because......

We are not effectively addressing the need to deliver information (rather than data) to our smart facilities folks.  Rather than leading our team, building a business case, or developing a strategy for change, we buy the latest control system believing somehow that it will make up for our lack of leadership.  We outsource performance improvement to an ESCO.  We suffer proprietary solutions because somehow we think a magic bullet will make our building smart.

Does your team have the tools that let them understand the enterprise objectives and determine how the facility operations help deliver a better product or reduce cost?  We think about square feet in terms of rent, energy on maintenance.  Do we think about the fact that for every 200sq feet in our facility there is a person, who is helping make money for the firm, defend the country, or educate our children.  What we do every day running our facility also impacts how that person performs.  An what that person does every day effects how our facility performs.

So I ask again, does your team have the tools that let them understand the enterprise objectives and determine how the facility operations help deliver a better product or reduce cost?

A Definition

As the scope of Machine2Machine (M2M) has evolved, other terms like Machine to Human (M2H) and Machine to Enterprise (M2E) are starting to emerge to segment the pervasive nature of the M2M term. The M2M device, software, network, and service market is expected to grow rapidly world wide between now and 2010. Some estimates suggest the 2010 world market may exceed $300B in annual revenue. Where as there are some 500M computers in the world and 1.5 B cell phones & PDAs, it is estimated there are more than 38B other electronic devices that have information perhaps relevant to improving an enterprises operation. The M2M market strives to connect these devices to corporations, governments and institutions.

What is a facility manager to do?

How is the world of facilities changing?  What role does a facility manager play in total operations?  What do you do when the CEO starts calling you to his office and starts to talk about IT, the CIO, cost, compliance, etc?  You know what is wrong in operations but there never seems to be the right amount of money.  Why all this attention now?

The role of the facility is changing, whether you are at a university, a large enterprise, or a government facility.  Energy is becoming a pressing cost that is out of control.  Buildings are aging faster than they should.  Activists are talking about green and sustainability.

In the 90's a major transformation occurred in information technology.  The Gartner Group started to educate the market to think about IT in the context of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).  TCO changed the nature of IT from being a cost center to being a strategic weapon in a competitive world.  Energy, maintenance, supply chain management, compliance, and homeland security introduce a new market pressure on facilities that requires the facility manager to start thinking about their role as 1) a cost center or 2) a strategic weapon on reducing operation costs and improving operational quality.

It is now time for the concept of TCO to be applied to the facility.