IJEM Vol3 Iss5 Online

Volume 3 | Issue 5 | 2021
Official Publication

About this Journal
The International Journal of Energy Management is an official bi-monthly
publication for members of the Association of Energy Engineers. The journal Association of Energy Engineers
publishes original articles and papers detailing the latest engineering or analytical
approaches to energy management and energy efficiency.
International
Journal of
ENERGY
International Journal of Energy Management

MANAGEMENT
Published by the Association of Energy Engineers

Over 18,000 professionals in 105 countries trust the Association of
Energy Engineers (AEE) to promote the interests of those engaged in
the energy industry and to foster action for sustainable development.
Our members operate in the dynamic fields of energy engineering,
energy management, renewable and alternative energy, power
generation, energy services, sustainability, and all related areas.
aeecenter.org
ISSN: 2643-6779 (Print) Editor Steven Parker

Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 PE, CEM
ISSN: 2643-6787 (Online)
Journal_Covers_1-27-21.indd 2 3/15/21 1:25 PM

International Journal of
Energy Management
Steven Parker, PE, CEM, Editor-in-Chief
Vol. 3, No. 5—2021
Contents
Editor’s Desk—Stuck between Priorities
5
7 Monitoring Based Commissioning: Step-by-Step Approach to
Implementation in Chiller Plants—Senthil Sundaramoorthy,
Subodh Chaudhari, and Thomas Wenning
26 Can We Build Zero Emissions Buildings? Building Decarboniza-
tion—Peter H. Rumsey, Jorlyn M. Le Garrec Avril B. Levasseur
39 Energy Efficiency Enhancement via Steam Turbine Generator
Optimum Sizing at a Gas Processing Facility—Mana Al-Owaidh, Sol-
omon Oj, Abdulrahman Hazzazi, and Khalaf Al-Otaibi
53 Compressed Air Pressure Decay—Gregory G. Fitzpatrick
60 Are We Close to Having a Virtual Facility Manager or an Energy
Manager?—Andreas Winardi
68 Review of Building Performance Improvements through the Addi-
tion of Hydronic Additives to Boiler Plant Loop—Ashish Dev, Adrian
Pettyfer, Will Wilson and Dale Edginton
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY ENGINEERS®

ISSN: 2643-6779 (print)

ISSN: 2643-6787 (on-line)
2 International Journal of Energy Management
Steven Parker, PE, CEM

Editor-in-Chief
sparker@aeecenter.org

EDITORIAL BOARD
Lindsay Audin, PE, CEM, Energy Wiz, Inc.; Barry Benator, PE, CEM, Benatech, Inc.; Jeremy
Blanchard, CEM, GDS Associates; Ian Boylan, Chartered Engineer, CEM, Target Energy; Scott Dun-
ning, PhD, PE, CEM, University of Maine; LJ Grobler, PhD, PE, CEM, North-West University; Wei
Guo, Ph.D., PE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Eric Oliver, PE, CEM, Earthwide, LLC; Stephen
Roosa, PhD, CEM, RPM Asset Holdings, Energy and Sustainable Solutions; Stephen Sain, PE, CEM,
Sain Engineering Associates, Inc.; Wayne Turner, PhD, PE, CEM, Editor Emeritus.
AEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2021

George (Buster) Barksdale, President; Dr. Fotouh Al-Ragom, President-Elect; Eric Oliver, Secretary;
Tim Janos, Treasurer; 2020 Regional Vice Presidents: Adam Jennings, Region I; Ray Segars, Region
II; Jerry Eaton, Region III; Steven Morgan, Region IV; Cynthia Martin, Region V.
International Journal of Energy Management (ISSN 2643-6779) is published bimonthy by the

Association of Energy Engineers, 3168 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA 30341. Production
Office: 3168 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA 30341, 770-447-5083, ext. 224.
Copyright, 2021, by the Association of Energy Engineers, 3168 Mercer University Drive,
Atlanta, GA 30341. Contributed material expresses the views of the authors, not necessarily those
of the Association of Energy Engineers or the editors. While every attempt is made to assure the
integrity of the material, neither the authors, association, nor the editor is accountable for errors or
omissions.
Subscriptions: $534 for individual print subscriptions; $731 for combined print and online subscrip-
tions; $621 for online only subscriptions. Print-only institutional subscriptions are not available.
AEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

Please notify the Association of Energy Engineers, 3168 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA
30341
Tel: 770-447-5083, ext. 224, email membership@aeecenter.org
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Articles and letters to the editor should be submitted to Steven Parker, Editor, International Journal of
Energy Management, Email: sparker@aeecenter.org.
Publication Policy
International Journal of Energy Management is a peer-to-peer communication channel for practicing energy managers. Thus, all
articles must be of a practical nature and should not be pure or basic research. If the article appears to be basic research oriented,
the author(s) must explain in a leading paragraph why practicing energy managers should know the material.
Peer review is offered if requested by the author(s), but peer review must be requested in the submission email or letter. This
will add about 6 months to the lead time before publishing. All other articles will be editor reviewed.
Transfer of copyright to AEE must occur upon submission and if any of the material has been published in other journals
previously, that source must be identified and referenced. If the previous publication was at an AEE conference or in another AEE
publication, that should also be referenced. All articles appearing in the journal are opinions and works of the authors and not
AEE or the editor.
If you are submitting an article for possible publication you hereby grant AEE the right to print and assign a release of copy-
right of submitted article to AEE. If you are submitting an article under a governmental agency and submitted work is covered in
the public domain, you hereby grant to AEE the right to reprint submitted work.
2022 Energy Events
Mark Your Calendars
Cincinnati, OH
March 23-24, 2022
Duke Energy Convention Center
east.aeecenter.org
Seattle, WA
June 15-16, 2022
Washington State Convention Center
west.aeecenter.org
Atlanta, GA
Conference Sept. 21-23, 2022
Expo Sept. 21-22, 2022
Georgia World Conference Center
aeeworld.org
Dublin, Ireland
Oct. 26-27, 2022
Citywest Convention Center
europe.aeecenter.org
Certified Measurement and
Verification Professional
Get CMVP® Certified Today

A Certified Measurement & Verification The certification program is
Professional (CMVP®) is an individual of greatest value to those
who measures and verifies energy usage undertaking or assessing
M&V energy projects, such as
and energy requirements throughout
existing M&V professionals,
a building or across multiple facilities. energy engineers, energy
They develop metrics so that investment managers, energy analysts,
in energy, water, demand management, financial executives,
retrofit, and renewable energy projects manufacturing and facilities
can be evaluated, and prioritized. A managers, and energy
consultants. Obtaining AEE’s
CMVP® can often help a company realize
CMVP® certification provides
substantial savings.
international credibility
among energy management
and M&V communities.
Boost Your Career IN CONJUNCTION WITH

Get Certified Today...
aeecenter.org/cmvp
Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 | (770) 447-5083
Volume 3, Number 5 5
Editor’s Desk
Stuck Between Priorities
In my last editorial, I wrote about climate change and what I see

as current examples of its man-made impacts. I am well aware of the
difference between climate and weather; and therefore, I understand it
is difficult (or nearly impossible) to form a direct link between a specific
weather event and global climate change. Nonetheless, sometimes there
is a link between correlation and causality. Since my Volume 3, #4
editorial, events have continued to accumulate (fires, floods, storms, etc.).
The North Atlantic hurricane season spans from June through November
with September typically being the peak of the season. The number of
named storms each year ranges from 1 (1914) to 30 (2020). If you look
at a graph of the annual number of named Atlantic storms for the past
170 years (available on Wikipedia) you will see there has been an increase
in the number of named storms in recent years. If you do not believe in
climate change, I invite you to open your eyes. Ask people in Louisiana
and New York their views on this year’s weather-related flooding. I have
appreciated the recent rains here in Oregon, which have filtered the ever-
present smoke from the air—for the time being.
As I write this editorial, it is a month before AEE World. Part of
me is really looking forward to attending the event in person. Part of
me is a bit hesitant. I have always enjoyed New Orleans—the food is
awesome, and the culture is unabashed. I also enjoy AEE conferences. I
always learn something from the presentations, the trade show, and the
extracurricular events.
Yes, part of my reluctance is COVID-related. During the pandemic
I have flown more than 10,000 miles spanning five continents. I have
traveled safely, and I have also been lucky. Today, I am fully vaccinated;
therefore, I am much better protected than on previous trips. Still, the
current variants are more worrisome than before. Worse than that,
people are becoming fatigued and burned out with prevention measures.
I am perfectly fine with someone endangering their own live—seriously,
run with scissors, play in traffic, jump off a bridge. The problem is when
you endanger others in the process. You have rights, right up until it
infringes on the rights of others. You do not have that right. You never
did.
Remember the book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, by
Robert Fulghum? I think it should be re-released and become mandatory
reading. I am concerned that too many people have forgotten how to be
social (kind, nice, decent, responsible, etc.).
Get vaccinated. Wear a mask. Stay socially distant as best you can.
Play well with others.
Steven Parker, PE, CEM

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Energy Management
A journal of the Association of Energy Engineers
saparker@aeecenter.org
A Referred Article*
Monitoring Based Commissioning:

Step-by-step Approach to
Implementation in Chiller Plants
Senthil Sundaramoorthy, Subodh Chaudhari, and Thomas Wenning
ABSTRACT
Chilled water systems consume a significant portion of the energy in

manufacturing, and inefficient operation could significantly influence util-
ity bills5and the environmental footprint of a facility. One way to ensure
long-term energy-efficient plant operation is to ensure that chilled water
system equipment, such as chillers, cooling towers, and pumps, are run-
ning at their best. Periodic operational assessments help to meet efficiency
objectives for cooling plants. However, occasional set point and operation-
al changes resulting from short-term fluctuations cause the plant operation
to deviate from optimal. These changes accumulate over time, and oper-
ational efficiency deteriorates. Significant energy efficiency improvement
potential in chilled water systems can be achieved by operational changes
alone. Recent developments in information technology and the industrial
internet of things data processing ability have overcome traditional prob-
lems and given rise to a new paradigm: monitoring-based commissioning
(MBCx). Commissioning platforms and fault detection and diagnostics
capabilities have evolved over time and presented more sophisticated abil-
ities to efficiently control process cooling plants. The typical architectures
of the MBCx process and a detailed approach to implement the process
for chilled water systems are presented. A case study highlighting the ener-
gy- and cost-savings potential of MBCx systems is also presented.
*A referred article has undergone technical peer review by the editor-in-chief and a select team from
the journal’s editorial board members. The article has been updated in response to comments from
the technical peer review process.
INTRODUCTION
Chilled water (CHW) systems are integrated into critical functions of the
manufacturing and commercial buildings industries. Predominant applica-
tions include food storage, refrigeration, parts cooling, data center cooling,
and HVAC. Energy consumption by CHW system varies by application and
ranges between 5% and 40% [1] of the total electrical energy use in a facil-
ity. As energy costs rise, facility managers struggle to adhere to their annual
operation and maintenance budgets.
New technology has fueled energy efficiency improvement in CHW
systems. However, operating practices heavily influence overall energy
and maintenance costs. CHW systems need to run at optimum settings
to achieve the lowest life cycle cost operation. In addition to causing ener-
gy waste, inefficiency can lead to uncontrollable processes, product loss,
quality loss, equipment malfunction, downtime, occupant discomfort, reli-
ability loss, shorter life span. Equipment faults must be diagnosed early to
prevent system deterioration and energy losses. Periodic recommissioning,
retro-commissioning, and assessments help to meet the tune-up/commis-
sioning objective for the chilled water plant. However, occasional set point
and operational changes resulting from short-term cooling load fluctuations,
special process adjustments, and aging chillers cause the plant operation to
deviate from optimal. Therefore, focusing on optimal operation of chillers
is necessary to achieve and retain energy reduction. A monitoring system is
an effective analysis tool for CHW systems and can be configured as a web-
based or local customized building automation system (BAS) solution. The
capabilities of a monitoring-based commissioning (MBCx) system to reduce
energy consumption and increase reliability of chiller plants are discussed.
Typical MBCx architectures and implementation approaches are explored,
and the benefits of MBCx are distinguished from those of a conventional
BAS. The proposed six-step approach can serve as a guideline for facilities to
implement MBCx for their CHW system.
Distinction of MBCx
Energy information systems are an extension of management informa-
tion systems by which a network of sensors, data acquisition hardware, and
reporting software is deployed in a manufacturing or commercial building
environment to continually monitor the performance of energy-intensive
equipment. MBCx is a process to maintain and continuously improve equip-
ment performance. It monitors energy equipment and uses rules-based or

machine learning-based algorithms for fault detection and diagnostics
(FDD). Corrective action plans are deployed using operator intervention or
automatic controllers. There are two ways to implementing MBCx. Both
start by collecting data using sensor networks for a BAS. In a facility-based
MBCx approach, the data are stored on local servers where analytics and
control algorithms are executed. In a cloud-based MBCx approach, the data
are sent to cloud-based servers where analytics and control algorithms are
executed, and recommendations are sent back to the master controller for
dynamic control and visualization on dashboards. When MBCx was intro-
duced, it represented a paradigm shift, delivering cost-effective energy sav-
ings by capturing previously untapped potential savings [2].
Custom BAS solutions are designed for the monitored plant and have
the advantages that analytics can be customized for the operation, outside
data communication is not required, and security can be prioritized. Custom
design can be code-intensive and can have limited features because of the
programming effort required. The increasing complexity in a BAS can often
cause gaps between potential energy efficiency and actual operation. Vast
amounts of data are usually available to analyze equipment operation and
identify these gaps. Fortunately, analytical software tools can turn the flood
of equipment data into actionable recommendations. Multiple providers of
MBCx and FDD platforms offer distinct capabilities. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology and the American Society of Heating, Refrig-
erating and Air-Conditioning Engineers have worked together to release
HVAC-Cx software to allow MBCx and FDD [3].
Figure 1 displays a range of tools and performance monitoring systems,
from basic tools for metering to advanced energy information systems that
automatically optimize equipment settings in real time. This article focuses
on the advanced energy information system tools MBCx and FDD. Strate-
gic steps for the implementation of these tools are discussed.
Three major benefits achieved by MBCx are granular-level savings
that remain uncaptured in other commissioning processes such as periodic
recommissioning and retro-commissioning, continual performance moni-
toring and enhancement, and extension of equipment life by predicting seri-
ous maintenance issues. For example, monitoring refrigerant approach tem-
peratures to identify scaling/fouling of heat exchangers can prevent chiller
surging or stalling, which can damage the chiller compressor. As shown in
Figure 2, MBCx applies five core elements: data collection, data analysis,
10
Figure 1. Performance monitoring and improvement solutions represented on savings potential

vs. implementation cost chart.

Volume 3, Number 5
Figure 2. Core elements of MBCx implementation for CHW system.

11
FDD optimization insights, implementation of corrective actions, and verifi-

cation of savings.
MBCx ENERGY SAVINGS
MBCx systems are used to sustain optimality and go beyond tradition-

al BAS capabilities for CHW systems because they will detect and diagnose
specific faults by analyzing data (e.g., kilo-Watt per ton spike, non-optimal
set points, off-design water flows, and heat transfer losses). When symp-
toms of overlapping faults exist, MBCx algorithms can perform analysis
to isolate individual faults. MBCx complements BASs to maximize CHW
system efficiency and reliability by providing constant feedback on faults
and optimization status. MBCx for CHW systems focuses on three types
of savings:
1. Restorative—by identifying operation drift, such as drifting flow, pres-
sure or temperature, non-condensable gas build-up, and off-design
refrigerant levels
2. Preventive—by identifying problems, such as heat transfer degrada-
tion, approach temperature increase, fouling, and scaling, before they
become expensive (cost avoidance) and
3. Opportunity—by identifying operational improvements, such as opti-
mal chilled water set point, chiller sequencing, load balancing, and
cooling tower water reset.
MBCx FOR CHW SYSTEMS
Typically, implementing MBCx in a CHW system begins with collect-

ing the design specifications of the CHW system and operating data over
sensor networks. In most cases, existing sensors are tested for accuracy,
and any additional required sensor devices are installed. The data are then
communicated with a local or cloud-based storage system for continu-
ous retrieval at a predetermined time interval. The cloud-based system is
equipped with built-in algorithms that process the collected data and per-
form real-time analytics to identify faults and improvement measures. Fig-
ure 3 shows two of the most common architectures of MBCx deployment
in industry, cloud-based MBCx and local/custom-programmed MBCx
with a BAS. For cloud-based MBCx, a BAS may not be necessary, but if a

Volume 3, Number 5
Figure 3. A typical MBCx architecture for a chilled water plant.

13
BAS is present, it could be integrated to communicate with the cloud using

an internet gateway. For local MBCx, the equipment data are communi-
cated using an intranet gateway. Local MBCx usually utilizes a BAS, but
special implementations that do not need a BAS may be feasible.
MAKING A BUSINESS CASE

FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MBCx
A generic business case approach with MBCx implementation is diffi-

cult because savings mechanisms vary on a case-by-case basis. MBCx is an
enabling tool, and a software platform, that does not generate savings direct-
ly but rather identifies manual maintenance actions and/or allows automat-
ed adjustments that continually optimize chiller operations. Researchers at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) extensively studied
MBCx and energy management information system (EMIS) implementa-
tions in the United States across different sectors and tracked cost effective-
ness [4]. Quantifying the energy and cost benefits realized by MBCx and
EMISs is generally difficult because savings result from avoided capital and
retrofit projects, and avoided performance degradation.
Costs associated with MBCx are divided into three categories: base
costs, which include sensors, automation, and software installation; oper-
ational costs, which include software licensing and engineering support
for MBCx; and maintenance labor costs, which include fault resolutions,
alarm resets, and active use of MBCx reporting. The data in the litera-
ture are available for the commercial buildings sector and show that the
implementation cost can be $0.02-$0.45 per square foot in addition to
maintenance and labor costs [4]. In the industrial sector, these costs are
anticipated to be similar or lower. The resulting savings can be calculated
with software analysis provided by MBCx or can become input for DOE-
2, EnergyPlus, or other energy simulation tools. From data collected by
Berkeley Lab, the median savings for FDD-MBCx platforms are 6% sav-
ings at the end of the first year and rise to 27% in the fifth year [4]. The
savings gradually increase after installation as newer opportunities are cap-
tured and implemented via MBCx. Analysis carried out by Berkeley Lab
of 72 installations of EMISs and MBCx shows that the median simple
payback period for these systems is two years [4].
THE SIX-STEP APPROACH
The following six-step approach will guide facility managers or energy

managers toward implementing MBCx in a chiller plant.
1. Gather CHW System Documentation

Proper documentation identifying CHW system equipment sched-
ules, design specifications, operational sequences, piping and instrumenta-
tion drawings, data logs, BAS control sequences, and tag listing of all the
points in the CHW system is crucial to implementing an MBCx system.
In addition, collecting current facility requirements, including tempera-
ture and humidity requirements, peak loads, and requirements for special
use areas, are required to determine whether the system is operating as
intended. One of the critical parameters that MBCx systems track is actu-
al operating chiller efficiency. Ideally, this operating efficiency should be
higher than the chiller’s design efficiency at part load conditions; however,
deviation is possible from failure to change critical set points for changing
load conditions. Continuous operation below design efficiency at part load
conditions indicates an issue in operations or the system itself and is an
opportunity for improvement. Therefore, documenting and knowing the
chiller’s design efficiency will allow operators to be aware of any issues.
The design efficiency can be acquired from chiller manuals or by contact-
ing the chiller manufacturer. Similarly, other parameters from the chiller
specifications, such as water flows, change in temperature, refrigerant pres-
sures, and approach temperature data, can be used to gauge system perfor-
mance. An example of a water-cooled chiller design specification sheet is
shown in Table 1. Critical information from documentation is input to the
MBCx system and compared with actual operational data, and faults are
identified and diagnosed if the system deviates from intended operational
parameters.
2. Communicate with IT Team

MBCx implementation involves continuous data collection, which
necessitates networked solutions and exhaustive data communication.
Therefore, involvement of an IT team from early phases of implemen-
tation is paramount. The facility manager and IT lead must agree on the
details of the project and cybersecurity concerns. Understanding these
16
Table 1. Water-cooled Chiller Specification Data

details and concerns from the beginning could help the team in terms of
choosing the right architecture for MBCx implementation. A local archi-
tecture for MBCx system is more secure, but this option can rule out con-
tinual oversight by external experts and advanced cloud-based systems that
can generate quality insights for effective CHW system control. Typical
software-as-a-service models and some advanced machine learning-based
control systems can be cloud-based and require two-way communication
(i.e., sending and receiving information), which may open plant equipment
to broader malicious attacks.
Newer MBCx platforms manage these issues by encrypting data and
continuously monitoring server traffic so that the services offered are
secure. To avoid any complication, involving an IT team and knowing the
requirements from the beginning are imperative. Because information sys-
tems change rapidly, early involvement of an IT team will ensure support
after installation in case of any system upgrades and changes. The role of
an IT team is pivotal to seamlessly integrate the existing equipment and
hardware and maintain functionality after installation of the MBCx sys-
tem.
3. Collect Chiller Operating Data

Data acquisition systems and parameters monitored for BASs/EMISs
vary widely from one facility to another. The purpose of the chiller operat-
ing data collection step is to establish the minimum necessary parameters
to effectively maintain CHW system function. Standard practices are to
assess the sensor data available and collect the CHW system tag points
according to their requirements. The data are then strategically mapped
to the selected MBCx model. As an example, consider a water-cooled
CHW system. For an MBCx system that aims to monitor primary pumps
and cooling tower fans in addition to chillers, the following minimum data
points can be considered from an optimization and FDD perspective:
• evaporator entering and leaving water temperatures,

• condenser entering and leaving water temperatures,
• evaporator and condenser water flow rates,
• evaporator and condenser refrigerant pressures,
• power for chiller compressor, tower fan, condenser pump, and
evaporator pump, and
• weather data.
The capabilities of MBCx and FDD are subjective, and the neces-
sary CHW system parameters that require monitoring are also subjective.
When the capabilities and requirements are finalized, the FDD rules will
dictate necessary parameters. MBCx capabilities must be balanced with
installation cost; therefore, more capabilities may not always be best. Map-
ping the existing parameters to the current system and only using new
sensors for the few additional necessary parameters is the best strategy.
The most important aspect of MBCx implementation is selection of
data granularity and time of historical archive retention. Data granularity
can affect control decisions and derived insights. Historical data can simplify
anomaly detection. Although lifetime storage of MBCx data is available and
can be inexpensive, its necessity should be evaluated.
4. Validate Data
Data form the basis of analytics and advanced controls and must be
verified before further communication and storage. The adage “garbage
in, garbage out” holds especially true for chiller MBCx and FDD. Impre-
cise measurements lead to incorrect inferences and sub-optimal operation.
Temperature, pressure, and flow sensors typically drift and lose calibration.
Timely validated data can identify drifts and calibration issues with prop-
erly designed diagnostics. If the sensors are not calibrated as per manufac-
turer recommendation, the instruments may not produce measurements
to specification.
Inaccurate data can have a dramatic effect on energy consumption [5].
Every 1°F decrease in chilled water temperature caused by an inaccurate
high reading creates a 1% to 1.5% increase in energy usage to maintain
that unnecessarily low temperature [6]. Inaccurate sensors also result in
inaccurate efficiency calculations. For example, as shown below, a 1°F error
in water temperature measurement results in 11% inaccuracy in efficiency
determination. The chiller is consuming 625 kW of power. If GPM rep-
resents chilled water flow, and ∆T represents temperature difference, the
cooling tons for the two cases can be evaluated as:
Tons = (GPM × ∆T)/24 = (2400 × 10)/24 =

1,000 tons and 0.625 kW/ton
Tons = (2400 × 9)/24 = 900 tons and 0.694 kW/ton

This data inaccuracy can alter plant operation, produce inaccurate

cost analysis, and skew the load profile, making optimization difficult.
Most importantly, the inaccuracy can cause wear on the chiller compo-
nents by causing them to run outside of intended parameters. The pro-
cess of calibrating sensors may be time-consuming and seem trivial, but
it will save unnecessary difficulties later when using the MBCx system.
Techniques used to validate measurements include sanity checks
such as operating ranges, expected change in temperature, refrigerant
pressures, and maximum and minimum flows. In addition, other rules
for checking proper operation could be used, such as load range mis-
match (i.e., load in shoulder months as opposed to peak months). Appli-
cable remediation measures must be considered for invalid or flagged
data. Data that are determined to be invalid could be discarded, and
data that can be salvaged for some specific information could be flagged
before storing. Many MBCx service providers use this method to vali-
date data before storing and generating any control action for modifying
plant operation. When implementing MBCx solutions, establishing data
validation protocol and system rules can be critical for the success of the
approach.
5. Perform Data Analysis, Tracking, and Visualization

Most chiller plants today are short on personnel. To free valuable
resources, plants might reduce or eliminate preventive maintenance and
keeping chiller operations log. Operators time for data analysis and con-
verting the analysis to a plant optimization strategy is in short supply.
MBCx bridges this gap by continually collecting data, providing opera-
tion analysis, and generating insights on optimization and FDD. MBCx
makes the commissioning process simple, effective, and sustainable. As
technology advances, data logging, analytics, and FDD are implement-
ed using customized software codes and are presented in easy-to-under-
stand dashboards and visualizations.
At the time of MBCx implementation, visualizations and optimiza-
tion metrics should be selected. Typical implementations include plant
tons, power (chiller compressor, condenser and chilled water pumps, and
cooling tower fans), chilled water and condenser water temperature set
points, efficiency, and plant operating costs. Interactive dashboards with
graphical representations allow users to explore operation and uncover
deep insights. Visualization enables quick and effective decisions that can
20
Figure 4. Data analysis, tracking, and visualization design for an MBCx system
(Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, used with permission) [7].
optimize plant operations over time. Analyzing and tracking capabili-

ties form the core of an MBCx and FDD software approach. Carefully
choosing the CHW system analysis rules and which information to track
is vital for a successful MBCx implementation. This step will generate
insights, faults, action sequences, and/or control commands that could
be used to ensure reliable and efficient operation of the CHW system.
An example of a data analysis, tracking, and visualization screen for
chiller diagnostics, developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
is shown in Figure 4 [7].
6. Implement Changes and Verify Results and Savings

The most critical part of MBCx to realize savings is the implemen-
tation of changes generated via continuous monitoring. The dashboards
and analytic results can be reviewed on an ongoing basis with the tech-
nical account manager/CHW system expert. Formulating policy to gen-
erate and prioritize work orders and resolve faults on a regular basis can
ensure smooth implementation of identified changes. The policy should
also specify a root-cause analysis questionnaire to determine prevent-
able issues. This questionnaire can minimize fault recurrence and ensure
sustainable savings. Some parameters, such as fan speed and chiller set
point changes, can be implemented automatically, but others need man-
ual intervention.
Monthly and annual reports can usually be generated automatically
from the MBCx software. A framework to verify resolved faults can be
used for tracking savings but is not always required. Changed parameters
can show in monitored data and can be used to track improvement.
MBCx systems have provided significant savings in operating and
maintenance costs for many documented cases, and one such case is the
success story at the University of Tulsa (TU). TU places a premium not
only on education but also on the judicious use of energy for the grow-
ing campus. TU uses a legacy BAS to turn equipment on and off and
make set point changes. A separate chiller control system was also in
place, but both the BAS and chiller control system could not collect or
interpret the data needed to continually improve chiller performance. It
also did not provide accurate sensor data. To support TU’s need for data
acquisition and better chiller optimization control, a cloud-based MBCx
platform was installed to provide real-time continuous monitoring of
the CHW system and gain access to key data points to improve system
performance. The MBCx system identified energy savings opportunities,

such as chiller sequencing and set point changes, which improved the sys-
tem performance by 25%, resulting in an annual savings of $51,000. In
addition, the MBCx system also identified heat exchanger fouling issues
using its proprietary algorithm, thereby saving an additional $300,000
in avoided costs by eliminating unplanned shutdown of the chillers [8].
Overall, the project payback took fewer than two years.
CONCLUSION
Choosing the right MBCx solution that satisfies all the requirements
can be challenging. The right solution can empower the CHW system
operations team and ensure successful MBCx implementation, reduced
energy usage, and improved life expectancy of the CHW system. The
distinction between a traditional BAS and MBCx is clear, and savings
achieved with MBCx build upon the savings from the BAS. The six-step
approach outlined here facilitates critical understanding of the MBCx
and FDD implementation issues to enable overall success.
Data collection, analysis, and implementation form the core of
MBCx, but the foundation of data design and IT communication are
critical for success. The savings tend to accumulate after implementa-
tion, and typical project paybacks are expected to take fewer than 2 years
[4]. The case study presented showed that the savings realized via MBCx
systems extend beyond energy efficiency and increase the overall reliabil-
ity of the CHW system.
The Smart Energy Analytics Campaign at Berkeley Lab is a pub-
lic-private partnership that encourages the use of a wide variety of com-
mercially available EMIS technologies and ongoing monitoring practic-
es. The Better Buildings Better Plants program of the US Department of
Energy has created informational resources on MBCx, which are avail-
able on the Better Buildings Solution Center website [9].
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the US Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Better
Buildings Initiative, Better Plants Program under contract DE-AC05-
00OR22725.
References
[1] S.R. Thangavelu, A. Myat, A. and Khambadkone, “Energy optimization methodology
of multi-chiller plant in commercial buildings,” Energy 123, 64-76, 2017. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.116
[2] A. Meiman, K. Brown, and M. Anderson, “Monitoring-based commissioning: tracking the
evolution and adoption of a paradigm-shifting approach to retro-commissioning,” ACEEE
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 4-260-4-274, 2012.
[3] N.M. Ferretti, M.A. Galler, and S.T. Bushby, “Performance Monitoring of Chilled-Water
Distribution Systems Using HVAC-Cx,” ASHRAE Transactions 123, Pt 2, 53-63, 2017.
[4] H. Kramer, G. Lin, C. Curtin, E. Crowe, and J. Granderson, Proving the Business Case
for Building Analytics. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2020. https://doi.
org/10.20357/B7G022J
[5] D. Clark, “How Sensor and Gauge Accuracy Impact Chiller Efficiency,” Air Conditioning,
Heating, Refrigeration: The News, 2005.
[6] B.N. Gidwani, Optimization of Chilled Water Systems, Energy Systems Laboratory and
Texas A&M University. Accessed September 1, 2021. [Online] Available: https://hdl.handle.
net/1969.1/6532.
[7] M.R. Brambley, S. Katipamula, P. O’Neill, Chapter 18: Diagnostics for Monitoring Based
Commissioning. In book Automated Diagnostics and Analytics for Buildings. Edited by B.L.
Capehart, M.R. Brambley. pp.193-202. Denmark, River Publishers, January 2021.
[8] S. Sundaramoorthy, R. Papar, and D. Shoemake, “Chiller System Optimization Platform
Saves Energy at University of Tulsa,” Chiller & Cooling Best Practices. Accessed June 29,
2021. [Online] Available: https://coolingbestpractices.com/index.php/system-assessments/
chillers/chiller-system-optimization-platform-saves-energy-university-tulsa.
[9] US Department of Energy, “Smart Energy Analytics Campaign—Better Buildings Initia-
tive,” Better Buildings. Accessed June 29, 2021. [Online] Available: https://betterbuildings-
solutioncenter.energy.gov/alliance/technology-campaigns/smart-energy-analytics-campaign.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Senthil Sundaramoorthy, CEM, is currently an associate research
and development staff member and technical account manager for Bet-
ter Plants Program at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). He
has more than 12 years of experience in energy management of indus-
trial and commercial energy systems and applying best practices. Senthil
holds a master’s degree in industrial engineering from West Virginia Uni-
versity where he was involved with the University’s Industrial Assessment
Center (IAC). While at the IAC, Senthil assisted in performing energy
audits for small and medium sized manufacturing plants and developed
energy efficiency measures. Prior to ORNL, he worked at Hudson Tech-
nologies providing energy assessments, technical assistance, and lead-
ing custom engineering projects. In his product lead role at Hudson, he
managed Hudson’s MBCx and FDD platform to help customers moni-
tor their energy intensive systems and to identify and implement energy
efficiency projects. Senthil is a Certified Energy Manager (CEM) and a

certified Qualified Specialist in the areas of process heating and steam.
Senthil may be contacted at sundaramoors@ornl.gov.
Subodh Chaudhari, CEM, is currently an associate research and

development staff member and technical account manager for the Bet-
ter Plants Program at ORNL. He received his M.S. degree in indus-
trial engineering from West Virginia University. His experience in the
field of energy efficiency and sustainability over last 10 years pans from
poultry farms to petroleum refineries in industrial sector and from small
residential buildings to university buildings in commercial sector. He has
participated in a total of 150 energy assessments in various roles at man-
ufacturing plants and commercial buildings. Prior to ORNL, he worked
as an energy engineer with Hudson Technologies leading product devel-
opment effort for MBCx and FDD platform for chillers, cooling towers,
and plate heat exchangers. He also led BoilerMACT energy assessments
for refinery and petrochemical clients. Subodh worked as engineer-
ing scientist with National Research Center for Coal and Energy and
WVU’s Industrial Assessment Center to provide energy efficiency assis-
tance to local manufacturers through federal and state energy assistance
programs. Subodh is a Certified Energy Manager (CEM) through Asso-
ciation of Energy Engineers (AEE). He is a certified Qualified Specialist
in the areas of process heating, steam, and pumps using AMO software
tools such as PHAST, SSAT, and PSAT. Subodh may be contacted at
chaudharisa@ornl.gov.
Thomas Wenning, PE, is a program manager for industrial ener-

gy efficiency at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and an
assistant professor of practice in the Department of Industrial and Sys-
tems Engineering at the University of Tennessee. Mr. Wenning manages
ORNL’s domestic and international industrial energy efficiency technol-
ogy assistance and deployment activities. He supports the DOE’s Better
Buildings, Better Plants program and the Federal Energy Management
Program by providing industrial sites with technical assistance activities,
energy assessments and training, and energy management guidance. In
addition, Mr. Wenning manages in leading the DOE’s effort to modernize
their energy-system software tool suite and associated training resources.
Mr. Wenning has led numerous international industrial energy efficien-
cy workshops, trainings, and assessments on behalf of the DOE. Mr.

Wenning is a registered Professional Engineer, a Certified Practitioner in
Energy Management Systems, an SEP-Performance Verifier, and a DOE
Qualified Specialist in the areas of steam, pumps, and fans. Mr. Wenning
was recognized in 2008 by the Alliance to Save Energy with their “Ris-
ing Star of Energy Efficiency” Award and in 2019 by the Association of
Energy Engineers’ with the “International Young Energy Professional of
the Year” Award. Thomas may be contacted at wenningtj@ornl.gov.
Can We Build Zero Emissions Buildings?

Building Decarbonization*
Peter H. Rumsey, PE, FASHRAE
Jorlyn M. Le Garrec
Avril B. Levasseur, PE
ABSTRACT
All-electric buildings are not a new concept, but the difference today
is that all-electric buildings can operate efficiently with carbon free
sources of electricity. Affordable renewable energy and heat pumps are
two critical components that are making decarbonized buildings possible
today. As electric grids move towards 100% renewable energy, the cost
to operate an all-electric building is equivalent to a gas building, but the
carbon emissions are much lower, and in some cases zero.
As heat pump technology improves and decreases in price, the case for
all-electric buildings becomes more compelling. In this article, we share
a case study of a new all-electric office building in Alameda, California,
currently under construction that will not generate any carbon emissions
after construction. The office is being built by a developer at a cost
comparable to the cost of a gas-heated building in the same area.
INTRODUCTION
Buildings in the US account for nearly 40% of carbon emissions, and

30% of those emissions are from the direct combustion of fossil fuel for
heating and other building uses [1]. As of December 2020, more than
1 in 3 Americans are now living in a state or city that is transitioning
to renewable energy, and 12 states have set targets for 100 percent
carbon free electricity [2,3]. The transition from fossil-fuel-based energy
to renewable energy electricity grids is already well underway. As this
*Article based on a presentation at the AEE Energy Efficiency for Transformative Solutions virtual
event.
transition continues to accelerate, any building burning fossil fuels on

site will be stuck with otherwise avoidable carbon emissions. Building
HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) systems, water heating,
and even cooking will need to be converted to electricity to eliminate all
natural gas uses and decarbonize buildings.
SPACE HEATING
Space heating is the primary gas use in most commercial buildings.

Most often, gas boilers are used to heat water, which is distributed
throughout a building. To decarbonize a building the gas boiler must
be replaced with either a heat pump, or in some specific cases electric
resistance heating.
Heat Pumps
Heat pumps are the most efficient option for electric heating. By
reversing the refrigeration cycle, they move heat from the outdoors into
the building, operating at a coefficient of performance (COP) between
2 and 4 in most cases. As all grids move toward renewables, the case
for electrification becomes stronger and stronger. Even with a natural-
gas-based electricity grid, a heat pump produces less carbon emissions
than a natural gas boiler. The diagram, shown in Figure 1, compares the
“resource-to-room” efficiency of three different space heating scenarios.
Heat pumps come in many different configurations such as:
• Air source heat pumps (ASHP) that heat water and distribute it
throughout a building similarly to a boiler.
• Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems that heat refrigerant and

distribute it throughout a building.
• Packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP) that use a single compressor

to both heat and cool air and deliver it directly to the conditioned
space.
Electric Resistance
Electric resistance heating is usually not the best alternative when
designing an all-electric building, but is the cheapest option to install.
28
Figure 1. Resource-to-room efficiency comparison of heating equipment

Although this does achieve the goal of electrification, it is a problematic

solution. Energy efficiency is a key component of electrification. Because
the electric resistance can never achieve a COP greater than 1, it
is 50 to 75 percent less efficient than a heat pump. Installing electric
resistance heating would introduce unnecessary strain on the electrical
grid by increasing winter peak demand. This is particularly difficult to
address because it will happen on cold and likely cloudy days when solar
generation is typically low.
DOMESTIC WATER HEATING
In residential buildings, domestic hot water (DHW) heating is usually

the primary source of gas consumption. It is therefore equally important
to electrify DHW systems as it is space heating systems. In single-family
residential buildings in particular, heat pump water heaters (HPWH)
are already common in warmer climates. A typical small gas hot water
heater in a home can be replaced with a heat pump water heater as
long sufficient electrical capacity is available. In larger buildings, central
domestic hot water plants that distribute DHW to all tenants can also be
run with heat pumps rather than gas. Electric resistance water heaters
are also available but create the same electrical demand issues as when
electric resistance is applied for space heating.
COOKING
The often-overlooked portion of building electrification is cooking.

In many parts of the US, stoves and ovens are most commonly gas
fueled. Although outside of restaurants and hotels, cooking uses less
gas than heating or hot water, the goal of electrification is to eliminate
all sources of gas in a building. Entirely removing the gas connection
to a building introduces cost savings and is an important step towards
the goal of eliminating all natural gas infrastructure. Furthermore, gas
cooking introduces unhealthy emissions directly in someone’s home that
can be entirely avoided.
Although an electric resistance stove is a poor substitute for a gas
range, a newer form of electric cooking called induction cooking is now
widely available. With induction cooking, electric currents directly heat

pots and pans instead of the surrounding air. This makes induction
cooking safer, faster, more efficient, and more precise than gas.
MODELING ELECTRIFICATION ACROSS THE US
We conducted an energy study to quantify the carbon savings of

electrifying the US building stock. The study used a 50,000 square foot
typical office building and compared two different HVAC systems:
1) Gas option: Variable air volume (VAV) with a gas boiler, the most
common HVAC system in office buildings
2) Heat pump option: Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system, a simple

heat pump solution that can be easily applied in a typical office
building
The diagram, shown in Figure 2, illustrates the two system options.

The study found that in all cities, the energy use was less when using
the heat pump option (Figure 3). It also found that the energy costs were
comparable for both systems (Figure 4).
In locations such as San Francisco, Seattle and New York City, the
electric grid includes enough renewables and zero carbon sources of
electricity that the heat pump option produces far less carbon emissions
than the gas boiler (Figure 5). As these cities and the rest of the country
continue to transition to renewable energy, the carbon emissions of
buildings with heat pumps for heating, domestic hot water and cooking
will continue to diminish. Once the grid is carbon free, these buildings
will also be entirely decarbonized.
BARRIERS TO ADOPTION
Despite the numerous benefits of heat pumps, there are still two key
issues that have prevented mass adoption of the technology: capital cost
and operation at low temperature.
Figure 2. System diagram of gas and heat pump heating options studied
If the cost of an air source heat pump for heating is compared directly
to the cost of a typical gas boiler, the heat pump is much more expensive.
However, there are several other factors at play. Firstly, if a single heat
pump can be purchased to provide both heating and cooling, then the
extra expense is minimal or possibly even none. For example, installing
a VRF system that uses the same compressors to provide heating and
cooling, will be a comparable cost to purchasing both a gas boiler
for heating and an air-cooled chiller for cooling. In addition, as more
governments ban new natural gas connections, the aging distribution
infrastructure will become more expensive to maintain. In the coming
years, gas prices will increase as these maintenance costs are passed on to
the customers. Therefore, operating natural gas equipment will become
more and more expensive. For this reason, a larger capital investment for
a heat pump may become the more cost-effective choice when evaluated
over its lifespan.
32
Figure 3. Comparison of energy use for gas and heat pump heating options in various U.S. cities

Volume 3, Number 5
Figure 4. Comparison of energy costs for gas and heat pump heating options in various U.S. cities
33
34
Figure 5. Comparison of carbon emissions for gas and heat pump heating options in var-
ious U.S. cities
The second key issue is operation at low temperatures. Current heat

pump technology may require electric resistance backup in extreme
climates. However, as the technology improves, performance at low
temperatures continues to ameliorate. At this time, certain VRF products
are able to operate at –22°F, making them usable in all but the most frigid
temperatures, rarely seen in the lower 48 states.
ALL-ELECTRIC OFFICE CASE STUDY
Construction is currently underway for a 220,000 square foot all-

electric office building in Alameda, California (Figure 6). Alameda
Municipal Power is a 100% carbon free utility; therefore, the building
will already be completely emissions free on its opening day.
The office will be occupied by Exelixis, a pharmaceutical company
focused on cancer research. The building will use a VRF system for
heating and cooling, and efficient heat pumps for DHW generation.
The building includes a large kitchen and lab spaces and is expected to
achieve 35% energy savings as compared to the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline
building and 50% of the building’s energy will be offset by solar panels
on the roof. The construction cost for the building is in line with other
similar buildings in the area.
The expected carbon savings for this building are 120 million pounds
of carbon dioxide over its lifetime.
CONCLUSIONS
Cost effective all-electric buildings are now possible. Once an

electricity grid is converted to 100% renewable energy, any all-electric
building powered by that grid will also become carbon-free. Carbon-free
buildings are already a reality in places like Alameda, California and
Seattle, Washington, where the utility already provides 100% carbon-
free energy.
As heat pump and induction cooking technology continue to improve
and prices continue to drop, all-electric buildings become a viable, cost-
effective option across the U.S. Emissions-free buildings are not only
possible but are already a reality.
36
Figure 6. New all-electric office in Alameda, California

(Image courtesy of Brick Architects, used with permission)
References
[1] The White House. United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization. 2016, pp. 59.
[2] UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation. Progress Toward 100% Clean Energy in Cities & States
Across the U.S. 2019, pp. 2.
[3] Natural Resources Defense Council. Race to 100% Clean. 2020
[4] EIA. 2020. “New Electric Generating Capacity in 2020 will come primarily from Wind and
Solar.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
[5] RE100. RE100 Members. https://www.there100.org/re100-members
[6] EIA. 2020. “What is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source?”. U.S. Energy Information
Administration.
[7] Morgenstern, J.; Mantegna, G. 2020. “IDER 2020 Avoided Cost Calculator Update”
Energy+Environmental Economics (E3).
[8] AHRI Historical Data, Published February 2020. Available at http://www.ahrinet.org/resources/
statistics/historical-data/central-air-conditioners-and-air-source-heat-pumps
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Peter Rumsey, PE, FASHRAE, is a widely recognized global
leader in energy efficiency and sustainable building system design. He
founded Point Energy Innovations in 2014 and is the CEO and Chief
Design Innovator. He has consulted to venture capital firms, successful
start-ups and has worked worldwide. He has directed the design of 41
LEED Platinum projects, 10 COTE Top Ten projects, 3 Living Building
Challenge projects, and 22 Net Zero projects. Mr. Rumsey may be
contacted at peter@pointenergyinnovations.com.
Jorlyn Le Garrec joined Point Energy Innovations after earning
her BS in mechanical engineering at MIT and spending a year as a
Fulbright Scholar in New Zealand, completing an MS at the University
of Auckland in physical oceanography. Her work has included a study for
the University of Utah to eliminate emissions in new campus buildings,
a carbon neutrality plan for Berkeley Repertory Theatre, and a study for
systematically retrofitting modular classrooms to achieve zero net energy
while enhancing health and comfort. Jorlyn Le Garrec may be contacted
at jorlyn@pointenergyinnovations.com.
Avril Levasseur, PE, joined Point Energy Innovations after
earning an MS in sustainable design and construction from Stanford
University. She strives to enable more efficient, healthy, and productive
building environments through the application of rigorous analysis to the
design process. Prior to joining Point Energy, Avril worked at the Rocky
Mountain Institute, a nonprofit organization that provides market-based
solutions, engaging businesses, communities, and institutions to cost-
effectively shift to efficiency and renewable energy.
Active Membership
18,000 Energy
Industry Professionals
We Are AEE
Current Certifications
30,000 Certified
Energy professionals worldwide trust the
Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) to
promote the interests of those engaged Industry Professionals
in the energy industry and to foster
action for sustainable development. Our Global Presence
members operate in the dynamic fields of
energy engineering, energy management,
105 Countries
renewable and alternative energy, power
generation, energy services, sustainability, Local Level Commitment
and all related areas. 61 U.S. Chapters
Join Our Community Growing Base
Find us on Social Media or visit... 27 Student

aeecenter.org/membership Chapters
Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 | (770) 447-5083
Energy Efficiency Enhancement via

Steam Turbine Generator Optimum
Sizing at a Gas Processing Facility
Mana Al-Owaidh, Solomon Oj,
Abdulrahman Hazzazi, and Khalaf Al-Otaibi
ABSTRACT
The steam and power systems in oil, gas, refining, and petrochemical
facilities are very complex and require optimization models to support
the operation team in achieving required objectives while meeting all
constraints with minimal operating cost. To this end, Saudi Aramco
has developed a combined heat and power (CHP) optimization model
for each site. These models were found to be extremely useful in under-
standing the interactions between the various utility’s major components.
These components include boilers, cogeneration units, steam turbines,
steam system network including process steam users and boiler feed
water (BFW) condensate system. The interactions between these com-
ponents create areas for energy optimization opportunities that lead to
energy savings, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and operat-
ing cost reduction. This paper will discuss one example of an energy
efficiency project at a gas plant, where the plant thermal efficiency will
be improved by 2% through the optimization of the facility’s steam and
power system through the installation of a 14-MW multistage condens-
ing steam turbine generator (STG). The article will cover the economics
for six different STG alternatives and identify the selection of the opti-
mum STG final configuration.
INTRODUCTION
The gas plant has been designed to process 2,400 million standard
cubic feet per day (106 scfd) of sweet gas and consumes approximately
800 thousand pounds per hour (klb/h) of average high-pressure (HP)
steam. The plant delivers 296 klb/h of HP steam at 640 pounds per
square inch absolute (psia) through pressure letdown (LD) station to
produce 390 psia. In addition, 246 klb/h is reduced from 365 psia to
90 psia through medium pressure (MP) to low pressure (LP) LD station
to provide steam to process equipment. Figure 1 shows the available
steam flow in the LD stations at average operation conditions taking into
consideration the forecasted steam balance. The energy lost through the
pressure reducing stations can be efficiently and economically recovered
through a steam turbine generator (STG).
BACKGROUND
An optimization study was conducted for the plant’s steam system

and a new combined heat and power (CHP) optimization model was
developed. The basis of this new CHP model is covered in Oji and
Al-Owaidh [1], Al-Owaidh and Phung [4], Al-Owaidh, et al. [5] and
Al-Owaidh [6]. The objective from the plant’s CHP model is to simulate
the existing steam system and to identify the optimum size and configu-
ration of the new STG [3]. This is part of the ongoing corporate efforts
to enhance energy efficiency of the existing facilities and meet the (Saudi
Arabia) Kingdom’s demand growth in the most efficient and economical
manner. The intent is to generate electrical power from a new STG by
utilizing steam available in the letdown stations (LD) while maintaining
the steam supply to the processing facilities [2]. The LD stations will stay
in place as the back up steam supply to the plant’s facilities.
STUDY BASIS
The optimization study covered both the current operation’s

steam balance, and historical data for the steam passing through LD
stations, as well as the future forecasted steam balance, which is expected
in the upcoming 20 years. An updated CHP optimization model for the
gas processing facility was used to simulate the base case utilizing existing
steam balance and was adjusted with the new cogeneration installation.
Then, the model was used to run a complete optimization analysis to
compare different options encompassing its capital cost and considering
Figure 1. The Plant’s HP-MP Steam Balance
the forecasted steam balance. This energy efficiency is basically installing

an STG in parallel with the existing pressure reducing stations, between
the 625-psig high-pressure (HP), 375-psig medium-pressure (MP) and
75-psig low-pressure (LP) steam headers, to allow full utilization of energy
recovery under variable plant loading conditions. The new STG will be
integrated into the existing utilities and supporting systems. Power gener-
ated from the STG will be consumed internally within the plant’s 13.8 kV
network. The project will save around 500 barrels of oil equivalent per day
and will help to reduce 79,000 ton of CO2 emissions per year.
The basis of the study included the following:
1. Update the plant’s CHP model to reflect existing steam balance. In

addition to validate steam availability and the ranges in the LD sta-
tions between steam headers. This is indicated in Figure 4.
2. Steam balance profile for 2 years, as indicated in Figures 2 and 3.

It’s assumed that the steam profile will be the same for the forecasted
steam balance up to 2035.
Figure 2. The Plant’s HP Steam Balance
Figure 3. The Plant’s HP-MP LD Steam Flow
Figure 4. The Plant’s MP-LP LD Steam Flow
3. The average HP steam production for the 2 years is 720 klb/h. The
range between minimum and maximum value is 140 klb/h (i.e., ± 70
klb/h).
4. The plant’s average power consumption is around 120 MW and is
assumed to be roughly the same throughout the years.
5. Fixed ambient temperature at 77°F in summer season because of the
inlet air cooling function in the new cogeneration units.
6. The steam reserve available at the plant was set to be equal to one
cogeneration unit steam production, which is 320 klb/h.
7. Capital costs of STGs are based on Thermo-flow software and using
different vendor quotations.

8. Site conditions of the adjacent area was used in the model due to the
close proximity to the plant.
9. The plant’s steam demand forecast for the period is estimated based
on future gas avails for the plant and gas swing lines from other gas
plants.
10. The boiler minimum operating level for continuous operation is
30%.
STUDY OPTIONS
A total of six possible alternatives were considered during CHP

optimization model simulation to help find the optimum size of the STG
for each alternative. In total, the six options identified in Table 1 were
evaluated with respect to the business as usual (BAU) case.
CHP OPTIMIZATION OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the CHP model developed for

the analysis as explained in Table 1. Options Considered
Oji and Al-Waidh [1]. A typi-
cal CHP system model incor-
porates various elements of
steam, power, water, and fuel
systems into an overall math-
ematical thermal model that
can be used to meet numerous
objectives, such as:
• Evaluating opportunities
for cost reduction through
efficiency improvement.
• Energy cost accounting.
• Identifying the energy
cost impact of proposed
process changes on the
demand side.
• Comparison of various CHP options during early design stages for
new industrial facilities or often called “greenfield projects.”
• Categorizing load sharing strategies (e.g., switching between motors
and turbine drives).
There are several major equipment represented in the CHP opti-
mization model including: boilers; cogeneration; process heaters with
convection sides producing steam; steam turbines generators; steam tur-
bine drivers and motors drivers with switchable steam turbines driving
pumps and compressors; steam and power users; steam system network;
reducing stations and de-superheater; fin-fan condensers; deaerators;
and condensate system. The equipment is normally designed for site-spe-
cific conditions but often operates under different parameters due to
constraints, different ambient conditions (especially gas turbines) and
fluctuating demand profiles. The performance curve of each type of
equipment is developed based on either design or historical data.
The CHP optimization structure uses a similar approach for solving
an economic dispatch (ED) problem. While ED can be defined as the
method or way of determining the most efficient, low cost and reliable
operation of a power generation system by running the available elec-
tricity generation units to supply a given load demand. The primary
objective of economic dispatch is to minimize the total cost of genera-
tion while satisfying the operational constraints of the network and the
available generation units. In our model, the representation of the opti-
mization structure includes:
Objective function: minimizing facility operating cost, which is func-

tion of fuel cost, power import and export as well as make-up water and
water treatment costs.
Variables: steam and power loading of major equipment in the steam

systems, including boilers, CHP, STGs and steam turbine drivers.
Constraints: The following constraints are reflected in the model rep-

resentation:
• Meeting all steam and power demand
• Closing all heat and mass balances
• Maximum and minimum output limitations
• Non-negative flows
• Steam and power reserve required
• Minimum number of running equipment.
The main strategy used during development of a typical CHP opti-

mization model is to breakdown the problem into three levels and solve
each step one after another. For this optimization model, the three levels
of optimization are shown in Figure 5 (Optimization Model Levels). This
can be accomplished with a default Excel solver or improved by purchas-
ing more advanced third-party solver engines, which can solve all three
elements simultaneously.
STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR REPRESENTATION
As shown back in Figure 1, the facility has three levels of steam: HP,
MP and LP steam headers. Our objective is identifying the optimum siz-
ing for a new STG configuration at the gas processing facility. The power
Figure 5. Optimization Model Levels

generation from the STG is calculated based on the difference in energy

of the inlet and outlet steam. The multi-stage steam turbine generator
representation needs to be generic to cover all “what if ” options needed
for the evaluation.
In this case, two types of STG configurations were evaluated.
1. Multi-stage steam turbine generator from HP with

extraction stages
MS_STG_Pwr =
Stmin * (H1 – H2act) + (Stmin - Stmout2) * (H2act – H3act) +
Stmcond * (H3act – H4act)
STG-stage Isentropic Efficiency (%) = (H1 - H2act)/(H1 - H2isentropic)
H2isentropic = f (Pressure out – Entropy inlet steam)
where,
MS_STG_Pwr = power output from the multi-stage steam turbine
generator
Stmin = inlet HP steam to the multi-stage steam turbine
generator
H1 = enthalpy of HP steam
H2act = actual enthalpy of steam extracted from the
steam turbine at MP stage
Extracted steam flow at LP steam header = Stmin – Stmout2
Stmout2 = extracted steam flow at MP steam header
H3act = actual enthalpy of steam extracted from the
steam turbine at LP stage
H4act = actual enthalpy of steam at the condensing stage.
2. Multi-stage steam turbine generator connected to MP

steam with one extraction stage at LP
The representation is similar to the multi-stage steam turbine gener-
ator but much simpler.
MP-LP_STG_Pwr = Stmin *(HMP – HLP,act)

where,
Stmin = steam inlet flow rate to the steam turbine generator
HMP = enthalpy of inlet steam
HLP,act = actual enthalpy of the extracted steam at LP
For optimum sizing, it was assumed that the isentropic efficiency is

constant at 84% as the analysis is for identifying the rated size of STG,
see Figure 6.
Figure 6. STG isentropic efficiency vs. power load
STUDY ANALYSIS
The original model represents the base case option, BAU, where no
investment has been considered. The steam supply requirements will be
met by the LD stations. Figure 7 shows a snapshot of the plant’s CHP
optimization model used for the analysis.
The model analysis is based on the most likely case (average) of the
steam balance but also considers low and high steam demand cases for
sensitivity analysis used to validate the recommended sizes. For the low
and average cases, the plant will only need to run one boiler at the min-
imum load of 113 klb/h. However, at the high steam demand interval,
an additional of 70 klb/h is needed by process. Therefore, an additional
boiler will be in operation to meet steam reserve requirements. A sum-
mary of the key economic and energy consumption for each mode of
operation or steam balance case is shown in Table 2.
48
Figure 7. CHP model display-

Figure 7.Business as usual
Snapshot of the plant’s CHP Optimization Model
Table 2. Summary of the Three Different Scenarios
All six of the proposed options were thoroughly analyzed using the
CHP model considering the business as usual (BAU) data for the three
different operating conditions, and results of STG sizes were identified,
as summarized in the below Table 3 and 4.
Table 3. STG Optimum Size per Option per Period
Table 4. CHP System Efficiency per STG Option per Period

It is obvious from Table 3 assessment for the average case that

(Option 6) will recover most of the available energy at different steam
headers with respect to the other alternatives, which will result in power
generation of approximately 12.7 MW. Nonetheless, the system efficien-
cy would increase by 2% compared to the BAU case.
Similarly, the same option recovers the highest energy during the
period of maximum steam demand among all other options as described
in Table 4, which will produce approximately 19.7 MW with a system
improved efficiency of 3% from the BAU case.
Finally, Option 6 at minimum steam demand period can provide 15
MW with system efficiency improvement of 2% compared to other alter-
natives.
CONCLUSION
In summary, recovering the available energy at pressure letdown sta-
tions through STGs were proven to be energy efficient and economical
projects. This article shows how important it is to use a superstructure
model such as the CHP model used here to evaluate, analyze, and opti-
mize all possible configurations to identify the most effective solution for
the plant. It’s imperative to mention that the optimum STG option is
dependent on the economic factors, which are fuel and power values and
the capital cost for each option.
In this project, the results confirm that installation of multistage
extraction with condensing stage STG to recover most of available ener-
gy at different pressure levels is the most technically effective selection
compared to the other proposed alternatives. Additionally, this option is
the most cost-effective compared to the other options, where it gives the
highest net present value (NPV) from economical perspective. The aver-
age STG rating for the recommended configuration that considered all
different steam balance scenarios is calculated using the below equation.
STG (MW) = a0 * MWavg + b0 * MWmin + c0 * MWmax
where,
a0 = 70%;
b0 = 15%;
c0 = 15%.
The final design specifications of the selected STG and the CHP
output of the optimized case can be summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Recommended STG Size for the Plant
References
[1] S. Oji, M.M. Al-Owaidh, “Overview of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) model,” CEP,
April 2019.
[2] K.A. Amminudin, M.M. Al-Owaidh, A.A. Najjar, I. S. Al-Dossary and Y.H. Faifi, “Aramco
Team Plots Energy Savings at Berri Gas Plant,” Oil & Gas Journal, 2009.
[3] K.A. Amminudin, M.M. Al-Owaidh and Z. S. Barri, “Process Utility Interaction Analysis for
a True Energy Saving Value Determination,” AIChE Spring Meeting, Tampa, Florida, April
26-30, 2009.
[4] M.M. Al-Owaidh and B.T. Phung, “Efficiency-based Optimization Model for a Large CHP
System of an Oil Stabilization Plant,” AUPEC 2006, Australia.
[5] M.M. Al-Owaidh, U.A. Dhaifullah, G.R. Ken and A.H. Ghazal, “Optimum Operation of
Complex Combined Heat and Power Systems of Parallel Gas Facilities,” Energy Forum,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 2013.
[6] M.M. Al-Owaidh, “Energy Savings Opportunities through CHP Optimization Models,”
PEATEM, March 26, 2012.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Mana Al-Owaidh is an energy systems engineering consultant
working with Saudi Aramco since 2001. He has an MS in energy systems
engineering from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Austra-
lia. While earning his master’s, Al-Owaidh developed the methodology
of the combined heat and power (CHP) simulation and optimization
model, which has been deployed in all Aramco facilities. He is a coau-
thor of six patents filed in the areas of process and utilities simultaneous
design and optimization. Mana is currently the chairman of Energy
Systems Standards Committee within Saudi Aramco. Mana Al-Owaidh
may be contacted via email at mana.owaidh@aramco.com.
Solomon Oji is an energy systems engineer in the process and con-

trol systems department at Saudi Aramco. He has more than 18 years of
industrial experience in equipment selection, planning, and asset man-

agement of energy systems. He has experience in energy studies, pinch
analysis, process simulation, control and optimization, utility and power
generation, gas treatment, gas-oil separation, and liquefied natural gas.
He is a chartered member of the Institution of Chemical Engineers
(IChemE), and he holds a BEng and MEng in chemical engineering
from the University of Bradford, U.K. Solomon Oji may be contacted
via email at solomon.oji@aramco.com.
Abdulrahman Hazazi is an energy systems engineer working with

Saudi Aramco since 2015. He gained his bachelor’s degree in chemical
engineering from King Fahad University of Petroleum and Minerals.
Abdulrahman worked in one gas plant as a process engineer for two
years. He participated in several operational and capital related energy
optimization studies for industrial facilities within Saudi Aramco. He
may be contacted via email at abdulrahman.hazazi@aramco.com.
Khalaf Al-Otaibi is a utility systems specialist at Saudi Energy

Efficiency Center (SEEC). He has a master’s degree in renewable energy
engineering from Cranfield University. His work with SEEC includes
monitoring utility companies’ energy efficiency performance, energy
optimization initiatives, renewable energy integration and supporting
the Ministry of Energy objectives. Khalaf also worked with Saudi Aram-
co for 7 years and conducted several energy assessments, capital project
supports, and energy initiatives implementation. He may be contacted
via email at khalotaibi@seec.gov.sa.
Compressed Air Pressure Decay

Gregory G. Fitzpatrick, CPE
ABSTRACT
In this article, the author looks at identifying and resolving pres-

sure-related concerns in operating compressed air systems. Significant
energy savings are achievable through lowering the pressure in com-
pressed air systems, but achieving the savings takes careful consideration.
INTRODUCTION
A significant amount of education is available for saving energy in

a compressed air system such as, fixing air leaks, purchasing a variable
frequency drive (VFD) air compressor, and reducing air pressure. Do not
get me wrong, these are important steps to improve a compressed air
system, but I think the last one is more important than the first two and
is more difficult to achieve because each facility is unique. I have read
several recommendations about dropping facility pressure to 90 psig
(pounds per square inch-gage) or lower, but it is not always easy.
COFFEE BREAK
I recommend that everyone reading this article take some time with
a cup of coffee and with pen and paper reflect on three questions. It may
turn out to be one answer for all three questions, but a second cup of
coffee may allow further analysis that slightly alters your first response.
Question Number 1
What equipment is the largest consumer of air volume in your facil-
ity? A this point in the discussion we are looking at the big picture, so
details and exactness are not critical.
Question Number 2
What are the machines, consuming compressed air that are most
critical to your facility?
Question Number 3
Determine which machines are the most sensitive to pressure, in oth-
er words, who complains first when you lose pressure?
NOW, BACK TO WORK
When coffee break is over, take a walk around the building and lis-
ten. Pay attention to air noise from the compressed air system during a
period when it is relatively quiet. I surmise that you will hear noise that
would be quickly attributed to air leaks. For instance, if you walk by a
drill press and hear air flowing from a nozzle pointed at the drill bit, we
can wonder if it is required to keep the drill bit cool, or is it used to blow
away chips from drilling? If the drill is not running but the compressed
air is still flowing, is it still necessary or is it now a leak? Could this com-
pressed-air flow be supplemented by a wet mist cooling system using far
less compressed air or a different type of cutting method that can take
the heat and doesn’t need cooling, such as carbide? Take time to look at
why a machine needs compressed air and if it is being used correctly.
A little-known fact is that air compressors are measured in cubic feet
of air per minute (cfm) and most people think that is the volume of com-
pressed air, but it is not. It is the volume of air that is compressed. The
measurement criterion for determining compressor efficiency is the air
being brought into the compressor from atmosphere, which is about 14.7
psia (pounds per square inch absolute at sea level). The term ACFM,
which is used to measure air compressor efficiency, means “actual cubic
feet of air per minute” brought into the air compressor for compression,
based on ambient conditions. So, if the compressor brings in 60 cubic
feet at 1 atmosphere (in metric terms it is called 1 bar or 14.7 psia in
English units) and if that 60 cfm is compressed to 90 pounds, which is
equal to 6 bar or 6 times atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psia, then that
60 cubic feet of air is now squeezed to 10 cubic feet (ft3). Since we don’t
want wet air in our air piping, the volume of 10 ft3 is even less when the
moisture is reduced. Using an air compressor’s efficiency of approxi-
mately 4 cfm per horsepower (hp), it took about 15 hp to compress that

60 cfm of volume and it took a minute to do it.
This quick explanation shows why so much attention is paid to com-
pressed air systems. Compressed air is an awfully expensive commodity
and needs to be treated that way. One horsepower running 24/7 at an
electrical cost of $0.10 per kWh will cost $653 per year.
Getting back to the notes you made during coffee break, let’s take
a walk. Time is valuable, so let’s get the low hanging fruit. Look at the
largest user of compressed air. Does this unit have an inlet pressure reg-
ulator? Does the needle on the pressure gauge located on this regulator
move when the machine cycles? The pressure gauge on this regulator
is probably inserted into the port measuring the downstream regulated
pressure, while the other port, measuring the upstream pressure, has
a plug. If the needle moves on the pressure gauge during a cycle that
means you are removing more air volume than the filter, regulator, and
lubricator, commonly referred to as FRL, can pass per unit time. To fix
this you need to determine if the connection from the machine to the
main header is large enough to transmit the volume of air per unit time.
Please note that we are compressing air in cubic feet per minute and if
you have a large consumption in seconds, that short burst, spread over
a minute, may not appear large. If we take a minute of flow and jam it
into seconds, we need to remember air is a compressible fluid resulting in
a slight congestion if the flow is too high causing a drop in pressure. This
is why the “Compressed Air Challenge*” suggests calculating air velocity
when you look at the flow in air piping.
There are three things to examine causing pressure swings at a regu-
lator.
1. The rubber drop hose supplying compressed air from the overhead
pipeline might be too small or too long for the volume required.
Compressed air flow is, in many ways, like electrical flow. With
————————————
*The Compressed Air Challenge (www.compressedairchallenge.org) is a voluntary collaboration of
industrial end-users; manufacturers, distributors and their associations; trade organizations; consul-
tants; state research and development agencies; energy efficiency organizations; and utilities. This
group has one purpose in mind — helping you enjoy the benefits of improved performance of your
compressed air system. Its mission is to promote energy and operational efficiency in compressed air
systems for industry through information and training, leading end users to adopt efficient practices
and technologies while leveraging collaborative cooperation among key stakeholders.
electrical power, the size of the wire needs to be increased when the
voltage is lower, or the travel is long enough to cause a voltage drop.
Think of the wire size in an extension cord when using an electric
tool at an extended distance from its power source.
2. Another thing causing this needle swing might be the FRL being
undersized with a significant pressure drop at the air flows you
require. There are performance charts from the manufactures of
these FRLs, but you need to dig into the internet to find them. Some
have a 10 to 15 psi pressure drop at high flows.
3. Finally, do you need a regulator, or can the machine operate at line

pressure? Remember our original calculation of 60 acfm is giving us
10 cfm of compressed volume. If we used that air at 80 psi (5.44 bar)
versus 90 psi (6 bar), you would have a little over 11 cubic feet of air
or a 10% increase in volume. The reason there is more air volume is
because you are flowing fewer air molecules per minute. If you can
operate the facility or even a machine at a lower pressure, you will
save incidental air that will accumulate to big savings.
A little tip I have learned over the years is most machine builders say
you need 90 psig because that is the compressed-air pressure they have
in their manufacturing facility when they build and test the equipment
and they never bothered to test it at a lower pressure. Many automotive
manufactures tell their machine suppliers they have less than 90 pounds
of pressure to operate equipment because they have reduced their facili-
ty operating pressures. They insist that the machines they are purchasing
must operate at that lower pressure. Because this is significant dollars,
they have been very successful with that concept of adapting machine
builders to a lower operating pressure, rather than having it the other
way around. Another point I might mention here is to consider buying
equipment with linear drives rather than air pistons. The added cost of
the linear drive might be easily justified by reducing the added air vol-
ume to the existing compressed-air system. In addition, specific machine
functions requiring air rather than electricity, are about 8 times more
costly to operate than similar electric devices. There is a lot of wasted
energy compressing air.
The second item on our coffee break list is critical equipment. Look
closely at the FRL, we just observed and follow the supply line to where
it is connected to the main pipe header. If it is the last connection on a
dead end with a large consumption prior to its attachment, then that
could impact flow and pressure. If this is the case, a dedicated receiver
with a check valve to isolate it from the system, might be considered to
eliminate pressure drops during this intermittent high valued thievery.
Another suggestion is to reconnect it to another area of the header,
where the air consumption is less and the flow more laminar. A looped
piping system will allow air flow from two directions, rather than just
one, so air deprivation will be minimized, again, only if the compressed
air piping is sized to carry the flow you require during peak air flows.
The more expensive solution is a small, dedicated compressor but it is
cheaper than raising the entire system pressure.
The third item on our list is the area that complains first, which may
not be the most critical to production, but it may alert you to problems
of compressed-air consumption versus volume per unit of time. Do not
rush out and buy a larger compressor if this problem should occur. Try
to determine what is consuming that volume so fast. A flow meter, with
a data logger, will highlight the time of day and the volume during this
intermittent event. By playing detective, you can use this information to
find the culprit, or culprits. If the air compressor is normally compress-
ing 10 cfm and you need 11 cfm for 15 seconds, then the air pressure will
drop because you are obviously consuming more than you are compress-
ing. If your average compressed-air consumption is 8 cfm during the day,
you should be able to accumulate 2 cfm into storage at a higher pressure
and distribute it is a lower pressure when the demand requires it, without
turning on or buying another or larger air compressor. This X volume
required for Y seconds will determine the air receiver volume.
To Calculate Air Receiver Usable Volume

A 1,000-gallon receiver when divided by 7.48 cubic feet per gallon
will provide volume in cubic feet. 1,000 gallons equals (133.7 cubic feet).
For most applications you cannot use air pressure below a certain point,
for instance 80 psi. If you are compressing air to 100 psi then the calcu-
lation for the amount of available air for use is: [(100 psi-80psi) *133.7
cubic foot receiver]/14.7 psia= 181.9 cf. At 4 cfm per horsepower there
is about 45.5 horsepower available for 1 minute. If that volume of air is
used at 90 versus 80 then we would have only 91 cubic feet.
IN SUMMARY
The cheapest air compressor is the one not running. The goal should
be not only to make the existing compressed air system work more effi-
ciently, but to remove and/or reduce the required amount of compressed
air. Buying a new air compressor with a variable speed drive makes your
system a little less costly to operate but it does not remove the waste.
Secondly, an air receiver, no matter how big, will serve no purpose if
the pressure inside is not higher than minimally required. Using our elec-
trical example, an electrician will install the electrical cable to a machine
sized to eliminate voltage drop. Do the same for the compressed air pip-
ing. There is a significant amount of information available to determin-
ing pipe size relative to air flow and pressure. Most charts are in pressure
loss per 100 feet. Pressure loss is cumulative, so add all your losses from
origin to the point of use. If increasing air pressure in your compressed
air lines is the answer for a volumetric buffer, then you are wasting
energy. The air pressure in the main air receiver should be higher than
the line pressure and this is accomplished using a regulator commonly
referred to as a demand controller. The pressure at the discharge of this
regulator should be the same at the end of the compressed air line in a
system with properly sized air lines.
Do not use the air compressor to control facility pressure. If you do,
the pressure must be elevated to cover the dips during high consumption.
This wastes energy because the air compressor’s responses will vary sys-
tem pressures. A demand controller holds the pressure band much better.
When the air pressure is stabilized, then you can look at finding a lower
operating pressure. If the air pressure is not stable, you need to elevate it
to keep within the margin of safety.
A fairly accurate rule of thumb is every 2 pounds (psi) of elevated
pressure is equal to 1% of electrical power. Using our $0.10 per kWh
energy cost, a 100-horsepower air compressor running constantly at full
load will cost ~$65,300 per year. If you can reduce your facility operat-
ing pressure by just 2 psi, that is a savings of $6,500. Pressure reduction
is a constant savings and does not come back like compressed air leaks.
More importantly, consistent air pressure makes equipment operate
more effectively.
Many times, in my audits, I have seen machines malfunction due to
quick dips in pressure. The operators then adjust the machine and read-
just when the pressure rises back to its original level, not knowing that it
was a pressure problem, not a machine problem. If a pressure problem is
realized, the quick solution has been to buy a bigger air compressor and
raise the air pressure. The ultimate goal is to make the pressure stable,
ensuring that pneumatic components on machines operate on a repeat-
able basis. I have seen systems with a load and unload pressure band of
10 psi coupled an additional 10 to 15 psi pressure loss at the point of
use. VFD compressors will reduce some of this pressure band but only
increase speed to their maximum level, leaving no accumulated capacity
for peak load unless oversized.
Oversizing an air compressor, even a VFD, sometimes referred to as
supersizing, forces it to operate in a non-efficient range, depending on its
specific load profile, which can be found in the unit’s (Compressed Air
and Gas Institute) CAGI data sheet. Reserve capacity is always required
but it should be in physical storage which costs virtually nothing to main-
tain or repair.
Good luck, and as the sign above my boss’s desk once read, “If this
job was easy, they would get someone with less talent to do it.”
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Greg Fitzpatrick, CEM, is a mechanical engineer who is a former
plant engineer. His company, Compressed Air Technologies, Inc., has
been in business for over 25 years providing independent compressed air
audits to companies seeking both energy efficiency and system optimi-
zation by looking at and beyond the compressed air components. Com-
pressed Air Technologies, Inc. does not sell or recommend any compres-
sor manufacturer. Greg Fitzpatrick can be reached at greg.fitzpatrick@
verizon.net.
Are we close to having a Virtual Facility

Manager or an Energy Manager?
Andreas Winardi, PE, CEM
ABSTRACT
A facility manager role a lot of time is not considered as a critical role

in the organization. Building owners need to start paying more attention
to this position as someone responsible for the day-to-day operation and
maintaining the condition of their organization’s most significant capital
assets.
Due to the technological leap of internet of things (IoT) and machine
learning, SMART building’s premise has put in a notion to replace facility
manager or energy manager function in the organization. As we replace
warehouse workers and cashiers with robots, do we have the technology to
replace an onsite facility manager or energy manager?
This article will examine how the facility manager role has evolved in
the past few years and how SMART building technology’s promise may
or may not replace humans to manage better and ensure the building
operates efficiently.
THE FACILITY MANAGER ROLE
IFMA (International Facility Manager Association) defines facility

management as a profession that encompasses multiple disciplines to
ensure functionality, comfort, safety, and efficiency of the built environment
by integrating people, place, process, and technology. Traditionally, facility
managers are responsible for maintaining the building and ensuring
equipment runs at its peak state.
In the past 20 years, facility managers’ roles evolved due to other
priorities, workforce reduction, and changing technology, leading to
challenges caused by the skills gap needed to meet the current expectations.
Figure 1 listed common challenges for being a facility manager, from
staffing to rising operating or energy costs. SMART buildings’ expectations

supposedly solve these challenges have not been met, but owners or sales
tend to over-promise but have been delivered.
Figure 1. The typical daily challenge of a Facility Manager
TRADITIONAL VS. SMART BUILDING INTELLIGENCE
The traditional approach of property management tends to be siloed

(Figure 2). Alarms, faults, preventative maintenance (PM), or client/
occupant calls are being tracked as a maintenance ticket and are diagnosed
Figure 2. Traditional Facility Management

separately. The number of work-order tickets resolved is a standard key

performance indicator (KPI) of most facility management processes.
Instead, how about we step back and look at things more holistically
(Figure 3)? Are the tickets related to each other? Can it be combined,
reconciled, and prioritized? The alarms may be caused by a sensor error,
which led to a fault in the air handler that drives clients to call due to
lack of heating, and all these can be resolved when we do the preventive
maintenance task. Eliminating duplication of efforts from data allows for
more educated and meaningful decisions.
Figure 3. New Integrated Facility Management
VIRTUAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT
Traditionally, the experienced facility manager can diagnose and

connect the dots but what if these four or more data points went to four
different maintenance departments. The current facility manager may not
have the experience because tenure has been going down and building
operation changes from time to time. Virtual facility management is the
next iteration of SMART building (Figure 4). It monitors data and events

Volume 3, Number 5
Figure 4. Virtual Facility Management Concept

63
in the building and connects them to work order/alarm/PM or fault and

drives either onsite or remote resolution.
This leads to faster identification of root causes and solutions to the
problem. SIEMENS found that 70% of issues can be resolved remotely.
The other 30% will be resolved through onsite staff, especially to resolve
people calls.
MACHINE LEARNING (ML)
The rise of computing power and internet speed connection allows

engineers to collect, crunch (analyze), and create building models and learn
the building’s behavior with the changing environment. Every building is
different due to location, shape, and occupant.
With the rise of IoT leading to lower deployed sensor costs, we can
gather many more data inside and outside the building. Today’s BAS
(building automation system) operates through human-implemented
intelligence. For example: Fouling cooling coil fault code: If the cooling
valve is 100%, and supply air is above set points, trigger fault. The machine
learning model iteratively learns from data, and as time goes, learns the
building behavior from the data and creates fault when finding things run
beyond “normal” (Figure 5).
As more and more variables are connected, from energy consumption,
flow rate, temperature and occupancy, the system can learn and can be set
to optimize a specific priority at the time (Figure 6). From health, comfort,
or efficiency, the operator can prioritize the day if needed.
The typical platform requirement for machine learning is shown in
Figure 7. This connection allows machine-learning artificial intelligence to
guide HVAC control.
It may take a few months of data collection to create a system model.
The model can be for an air handling unit (AHU) with variable-air volume
(VAV) boxes (Figure 8). The air handling model is then used to control
certain variables such as static pressure, air flow, or damper position and is
adjusted in real time based on outside air, room temperature, or CO2.
As computing power, internet and sensors become cheaper and more
reliable, buildings data can be modeled and adjusted in real time based on
user priority. This feature will help modern facility managers on their job
in real time.
Figure 5. Machine Learning model
Figure 6. What are my priorities?

Figure 7. Connection for Machine learning
Figure 8. Example of Energy Efficiency Optimization

CONCLUSION
The role of facility manager in 2021 has become more complex than
ever before with the rise of computing power and lower sensor deployment
cost. The need for good facility managers become more critical as more
responsibilities are put on their shoulder.
SMART building and virtual facility manager’s promise is getting
closer to reality, but SMART building is only as innovative as their
designer. Aging infrastructure is the number one challenge in integrating
technology. With the rise of computing and a faster internet connection,
machine learning and artificial intelligence can be located in the offsite
location and not locally. With better technology with easier and lower-cost
deployment, retrofitting older buildings can be less costly than traditional
automation deployment.
There will always be the human factor that machines or artificial;
intelligence (AI) can fill. Virtual machines, artificial intelligence, and
machine learning can only go so far. At the same time, you will still need
someone to adjust your system or decide the day’s priorities physically.
Future facility managers need more skills than just knowing how the
building works, like operating new technology and interacting with tenants.
Technology is there to make our life better, but will never be able to
replace a human as the manager of the building.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Andreas Winardi, PE, CEM, is a sustainability and energy efficiency
professional for Siemens Smart Infrastructure, with over 17 years of
experience in the industry. Andreas is passionate about implementing
practical energy efficiency measures, new technology, facilities improvement
measures, and creative financing for energy solution projects.
He is committed to demonstrating operational excellence in every
aspect of the development and delivery of energy projects to customers
to help meet their operational efficiency improvement and environmental
impact minimization goals. He received his BS in chemical engineering
and MS in mechanical engineering from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. His professional certifications include PE, CEM, CEA, CRM,
CSDP, CDSM, and CLEP. Andreas Winardi may be contacted at andreas.
winardi@siemens.com.
Review of Building Performance

Improvements through the Addition of
Hydronic Additives to Boiler Plant Loops
Ashish Dev, Adrian Pettyfer, Will Wilson and Dale Edginton
ABSTRACT
Coquitlam School District (SD43) conducted a pilot study that

was run at 4 elementary schools between September 2020 and March
2021 to review the performance of Endotherm® on its heating plants.
Endotherm® is a surfactant additive for hydronic HVAC boiler systems
which claims to improve heat transfer and lowers energy consumption. The
sites were selected out of a sample of 45 schools based on their correlation
between consumption and heating degree days (HDD) and the tightness
of the heating loop. This baseline and subsequent trendline were used to
predict consumption in the post-installation comparative period taking
guidance from Option C of the International Performance Measurement
and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). The impact of COVID-19 on sites
was measured by comparing these sites with other sites with no reported
technological or mechanical changes. Over the 6- to 7-month study period,
the four Endotherm® pilot sites reduced consumption by 11.35%, while
compared control sites saw an increase of 8.05%. During the study period,
the sample sites saved $3003 in reduced energy consumption and reduced
emissions by 18,700 kg of CO2e. Based on this performance, the simple
payback is expected to be within two years when incorporating a rebate
from the local natural gas utility, FortisBC Inc. This pilot study will be used
by the school district for further installation approval for other sites within
their portfolio.
INTRODUCTION
Organizations and governments throughout the world are focusing on

ideas and technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
due to climate change but not affect our ability to meet our global energy
requirements. According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
(Leung 2018), commercial and residential buildings account for 29% of
all North American greenhouse gas emissions. Space heating represents
the largest end-use in buildings consuming more than 7 trillion Joules of
energy. Optimizing the efficiency of boiler plants will continue to play a
large part in achieving reduction targets.
Hydronic boiler systems, which make up most commercial heating
plants, typically require chemical additives including corrosion inhibitors
to reduce corrosion and glycol to prevent freezing. Advancements in
hydronic additive technology have resulted in solutions that improve heat
transfer, reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions.
Pace Solutions Corp introduced Endotherm® as an energy-saving
additive for hydronic boiler systems. Water is used in all hydronic boiler
systems as a delivery method to move heat from the boiler throughout the
building. Endotherm® reduces the boiler water’s surface tension increasing
the contact surface area available for heat transfer. The improvement in
heat transfer results in a proven 10 to 15% reduction in energy consumption
and emissions.
Endotherm® is a thermally stable non-ionic surfactant that can reduce
the surface tension of water by over 60% at only a 1% dilution. With a
lower surface tension, the wetted perimeter or thermal contact area of
system water is improved, providing increased turbulence through the
boundary layer at the heat transfer surface. This effect is shown in Figures
1 and 2.
Figure 1. The Endotherm Effect

70
Figure 2. How Endotherm Improves Boiler Efficiency and Reduces CO2 Emissions
This results in an improvement in heat transfer efficiency and ΔTs

(difference between flow and return temperatures). Ultimately installing
Endotherm® allows buildings to get to thermostatic set points faster,
reducing run times while also allowing a reduction in flue gas losses in
condensing boiler systems.
Since 2018, FortisBC, an electricity and natural gas distribution
utility in the Canadian province of British Columbia had conducted a 25
building, multi-client peer-reviewed study of Endotherm® as part of their
Innovation Demonstration Program which resulted in a rebate offering to
FortisBC customers in July 2020. FortisBC offers a $200/gallon point-of-
sale rebate for Endotherm®.
Per the British Columbia’s Climate Change Accountability Act, all
PSOs (Public Sector Organization) are required to reduce GHG emissions
by 40% (below 2007 levels) by 2030, 60% by 2040, and 80% by 2050. Close
to 95% of BC’s electricity is generated by renewables and thus reducing
natural gas consumption is essential for PSOs to achieve this goal.
Coquitlam School District is one of the largest school districts in
British Columbia, managing 87 schools. The district is actively looking for
opportunities to reduce the GHG emissions at their schools which primarily
come from space heating boilers. During the 2020 AEE West Conference,
Pace Solutions Corp presented information on Endotherm®. Intending
to verify the energy efficiency claims of Endotherm®, Coquitlam School
District implemented a product pilot at four elementary schools.
METHODOLOGY
To review the performance of this additive, a study was conducted

by Coquitlam School District with support from Pace Solutions Corp.
The study was divided into 3 parts: Site Selection, Installation, and
Measurement and Verification (M&V) review.
Site Selection
A baseline analysis was conducted on 45 schools operated by the
school district using historical monthly billing data from FortisBC. The
sites with the strongest historical correlation between gas consumption and
heating degree days (HDD) were selected as the best candidates to verify
Endotherm® energy savings. Schools were removed from the study if they
had recent or planned retrofits during the pilot period or had significant
leakage from the hydronic systems. Four ideal candidate buildings were
identified and shown in Table 1. To provide a representative sample of the
different types of systems in the school district, two condensing boiler sites,
and two atmospheric boilers sites were selected.
Table 1. School-wise Energy Baseload Calculations
Implementation
Endotherm® is dosed at 1% of the total system volume. It can be
injected or added to the hydronic system through a pot-feeder similar to
adding glycol or inhibitors.
Endotherm® was added to the boiler water at each of the four schools
in August 2020. Installation took approximately one hour per site and
required no downtime or setpoint changes. No other changes were made
to the system to isolate performance to Endotherm®. A summary of the
treatment costs is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Endotherm® Project Cost
Measurement and Verification Review

The measurement and verification (M&V) study for this project took
guidance from the IPMVP Option C. A historical baseline for consumption
is measured at all sites by comparing gas usage to HDD. Pilot sites that had
a good correlation between HDD and gas usage were selected because any
change in consumption would be easy to identify.
Natural gas consumption was weather normalized for outside
temperature variances using HDD (18.5°C) from Pitt Meadows Coastal
Station.
A regression line was calculated using the historical consumption. A
trendline was calculated which can be used to predict consumption (y)
based on a known HDD value for that month. This can be compared with
the calculated consumption for any given month to determine a change in
demand caused by the Endotherm®.
OBSERVATION
The basic objective of this study was to identify low-cost opportunities

to improve building performance and reduce energy consumption instead
of undertaking large capital cost replacement projects. The energy
consumption for the last 2 years was reviewed along with a summary as
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. 2019-2020 Natural Gas Energy Consumption, Cost and Performance

Summary
It is noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact

on traditional usage and occupancy and thus energy demand on-site.
Many schools closed in March 2020 which can be reflected in a reduction
of consumption in some (but not all) sites between March and May 2020.
With schools (and buildings in general) re-opening in September 2020,
ASHRAE released guidance to:
1. Increase outdoor air ventilation.

2. Disable demand control ventilation.
3. Open minimum outdoor air dampers as much as 100% to maximize
fresh air flow and eliminate air recirculation.
4. Keep systems running longer hours (24/7 if possible) to help the
circulation of air.
This has caused a well-documented general increase in consumption

across buildings in North America.
For this reason, it was decided to run the same analysis for 2 similar
elementary schools that did not have Endotherm® installed to act as a
Control to compare the Endotherm® study sites against. The study was
run for 6-7 months between September 2020 and February/March 2021.
For each site, several baselines were considered for analysis. This
included natural gas consumption from March 2018. The Fall 2019 to
Feb 2020 heating season pre-COVID and consumption between March
2020 and installation. Figure 1 shows that the efficiency of the school had
improved from Summer 2019 and thus a shorter baseline would be the one
considered for the pilot study.
The chosen baseline is then compared with the same data after
Endotherm® was installed. A predicted consumption is calculated using
the trendline (in the form of y = mc + c) and compared with the recorded
baseline for the period.
The cumulative sum (CUSUM) of each month between September
2020 and February 2021 was used to determine the energy efficiency
improvement of each system.
Scatterplot outliers identified at these sites can be attributed to estimated
billing from stakeholders rather than documented data. With movement
restricted, so is the ability to collect actual meter readings and thus some
of the values are estimated (on trend with the baseline) with larger savings
reflecting 2- to 3-month windows rather than individually monthly savings.
However, the saving over the 6- to 7-month period is reflective of actual
meter readings and the correct period for normalization using HDD. A
summary of savings and comparison to control schools is shown in Table 4.
Over the study period, the four Endotherm® schools showed a
significant reduction in natural gas consumption ranging from 4.37% to
16.46%. The combined average gas savings is 11.35% which falls within
Endotherm’s® expected savings of 10-15% as previously tested in other

Volume 3, Number 5
Figure 3. Baseline Analysis of School 1 (Sample)

75
76
Figure 4. Post-Endotherm® analysis at School 2 (Sample)

Table 4. Savings Comparative between Endotherm® and Control Schools
locations in British Columbia.

At a unit price of $8 per gigajoule of natural gas, the study period
provided a gas savings of $3,003, providing the district a simple payback
in the first two years despite the increase in consumption caused by the
pandemic. Projected savings over the next ten years is estimated at $23,282,
with a 500% return on their investment. The reduction in natural gas in
turn creates a reduction in carbon emissions. The reduction of 375.38 GJ
offsets 18,760kg of CO2e which is the equivalent to the annual emissions
from four passenger vehicles.
The control schools, which did not receive Endotherm® experienced
an 8.05% increase in natural consumption over the same 6-month pilot
period. An overview of all schools in the district revealed a 7.8% increase
in natural gas consumption in 2020 compared to prorated baseline.
Table 5. Summary of School-wise Energy Savings and GHG Savings

CONCLUSION
Endotherm® was dosed into four buildings with a combined cost of

$6,748 including installation. A pilot study methodology was constructed
taking guidance from IPMVP (Option C) comparing a historical baseline
(normalized with HDD) with post-install consumption data.
Over the 6- to 7-month pilot study period from September 2020 to
March 2021, the 4 sites achieved an average 11.35% reduction in natural
gas consumption, while the two comparative control buildings had an
average natural gas consumption increase of 8.05%. This is also supported
by a district-wide analysis showing an overall natural gas consumption
increase of 7.8% when compared to the prorated baseline.
The pilot study project saved $3,003 in reduced utility costs providing
the district with a simple payback within the first two years. The direct
reduction in natural gas can also be seen as an offset of 18.7 metric tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The Endotherm® product was easy to install with no system downtime
and no mechanical issues reported within the first 11 months of operation.
The additive has an expected lifespan of over ten years, providing a
projected return on investment of approximately 500%. Coquitlam School
District will continue to install Endotherm® into more of its schools and
gauge performance. In 2020, the school district used 128,756 GJ of natural
gas. If Endotherm® is introduced on a District-wide scale, an 11.35%
district-wide savings would account for 14,613 GJ which is an equivalent
saving of $116,910 per annum.
References
Leung, J. (2018). Decarbonizing U.S. Buildings, Climate Innovations 2050. Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions (C2ES.org), Arlington, VA. July 2018. https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/innovation-buildings-background-brief-07-18.pdf.
≥
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Ashish Dev, CEM, CMVP, is the Energy Specialist with Coquitlam
School District with more than 10 years of experience in power trading,
energy audits, and management. Ashish Dev is a mechanical engineer
with an MBA in power management along with SEMAC (Sustainability
and Energy Management) graduate from British Columbia Institute
of Technology. Ashish is a life member of the Association of Energy

Engineers (AEE) and a Certified Energy Manager (CEM®) and a Certified
Measurement and Verification Professional (CMVP®) with AEE. Ashish
Dev can be reached via email at adev@sd43.bc.ca.
Adrian Pettyfer is the energy manager with Coquitlam School

District with more than 10 years of experience in energy management.
Adrian has gained extensive experience and knowledge working initially as
an energy specialist under the Fortis BC program and as a business energy
advisor for the BC Provincial Government LiveSmart BC program. Adrian
Pettyfer is a graduate of the sustainable energy management (SEMAC)
program at BCIT. Adrian Pettyfer can be reached via email at apettyfer@
sd43.bc.ca.
Dale Edginton is the operations manager with Endo Enterprises

(UK) Ltd the global manufacturer and IP owner of Endotherm®. Having
supported the launch of the Endotherm® product as UK sales manager
between 2014-2017, Dale moved to British Columbia to help launch
North American Operations. Dale has run over 400 M&V case studies on
Endotherm® across 4 continents. Dale Edginton can be reached via email
at dale.edginton@endoenterprises.com.
Will Wilson is the development and sustainability manager with

Pace Solutions Corp. As an active member of the AEE and CaGBC, Will
specializes in educating the market on water and energy efficiency strategies
for hydronic building systems. Will has spent the last five years developing
the Endotherm® market in North America, verifying energy saving for
hundreds of clients in commercial, health care, education, and government
applications. Will Wilson can be reached at will@pacesolutions.com.
FIND AEE ON...
Official Publication

About this Journal
The International Journal of Energy Management is an official bi-monthly
publication for members of the Association of Energy Engineers. The journal Association of Energy Engineers
publishes original articles and papers detailing the latest engineering or analytical
approaches to energy management and energy efficiency.
International
Journal of
ENERGY

MANAGEMENT
Published by the Association of Energy Engineers

Over 18,000 professionals in 105 countries trust the Association of
Energy Engineers (AEE) to promote the interests of those engaged in
the energy industry and to foster action for sustainable development.
Our members operate in the dynamic fields of energy engineering,
energy management, renewable and alternative energy, power
generation, energy services, sustainability, and all related areas.
aeecenter.org
ISSN: 2643-6779 (Print) Editor Steven Parker

Association of Energy Engineers | 3168 Mercer University Drive | Atlanta, Georgia 30341 PE, CEM
ISSN: 2643-6787 (Online)
Journal_Covers_1-27-21.indd 2 3/15/21 1:25 PM

IJEM Vol3 Iss5 Online

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJEM Vol3 Iss5 Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 3 | Issue 5 | 2021

Volume 3 | Issue 2 | 2021

International Journal of Energy Management

Published by the Association of Energy Engineers

ISSN: 2643-6779 (Print) Editor Steven Parker

Journal_Covers_1-27-21.indd 2 3/15/21 1:25 PM

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY ENGINEERS®

ISSN: 2643-6779 (print)

Steven Parker, PE, CEM

AEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2021

International Journal of Energy Management (ISSN 2643-6779) is published bimonthy by the

AEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

Get CMVP® Certified Today

Boost Your Career IN CONJUNCTION WITH

Stuck Between Priorities

In my last editorial, I wrote about climate change and what I see

Steven Parker, PE, CEM

Monitoring Based Commissioning:

Chilled water systems consume a significant portion of the energy in

ment performance. It monitors energy equipment and uses rules-based or

Figure 1. Performance monitoring and improvement solutions represented on savings potential

Figure 2. Core elements of MBCx implementation for CHW system.

FDD optimization insights, implementation of corrective actions, and verifi-

MBCx ENERGY SAVINGS

MBCx systems are used to sustain optimality and go beyond tradition-

MBCx FOR CHW SYSTEMS

Typically, implementing MBCx in a CHW system begins with collect-

Figure 3. A typical MBCx architecture for a chilled water plant.

BAS is present, it could be integrated to communicate with the cloud using

MAKING A BUSINESS CASE

A generic business case approach with MBCx implementation is diffi-

THE SIX-STEP APPROACH

The following six-step approach will guide facility managers or energy

1. Gather CHW System Documentation

2. Communicate with IT Team

Table 1. Water-cooled Chiller Specification Data

3. Collect Chiller Operating Data

• evaporator entering and leaving water temperatures,

Tons = (GPM × ∆T)/24 = (2400 × 10)/24 =

Tons = (2400 × 9)/24 = 900 tons and 0.694 kW/ton

This data inaccuracy can alter plant operation, produce inaccurate

5. Perform Data Analysis, Tracking, and Visualization

optimize plant operations over time. Analyzing and tracking capabili-

6. Implement Changes and Verify Results and Savings

performance. The MBCx system identified energy savings opportunities,

efficiency projects. Senthil is a Certified Energy Manager (CEM) and a

Subodh Chaudhari, CEM, is currently an associate research and

Thomas Wenning, PE, is a program manager for industrial ener-

cy workshops, trainings, and assessments on behalf of the DOE. Mr.

Can We Build Zero Emissions Buildings?

Buildings in the US account for nearly 40% of carbon emissions, and

transition continues to accelerate, any building burning fossil fuels on

Space heating is the primary gas use in most commercial buildings.

• Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems that heat refrigerant and

• Packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP) that use a single compressor

Figure 1. Resource-to-room efficiency comparison of heating equipment

Although this does achieve the goal of electrification, it is a problematic

DOMESTIC WATER HEATING

In residential buildings, domestic hot water (DHW) heating is usually

The often-overlooked portion of building electrification is cooking.

widely available. With induction cooking, electric currents directly heat

MODELING ELECTRIFICATION ACROSS THE US

We conducted an energy study to quantify the carbon savings of