ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area Power saving efforts.

Ricker;

In regards to your post, I have some responses.



First and foremost, I need to make a statement for clarification, per P.F. Correction.

Applying Power Factor Correcting items to Machinery will assist only to reduce the drawn KVA from the Utility - not the drawn KW or KWH.

Please refer to the following example...

ABBREVIATIONS:
VA = Volt Amp (Apparent Power)
VAR = Volt Amp Reactive (Reactive Power)
W = Watts (True Power)
W-H = Watt-Hour (Total Energy Draw)
KVA = Kilo Volt Amps (1,000 VAs)
KVAR = Kilo Volt Amps Reactive (1,000 VARs)
KW = Kilo Watts (1,000 W)
KWH = Kilo Watt-Hour (1,000 W-H)

Example:

Machine "X" runs exactly One (1) Hour per billing cycle.
Machine "X" draws 500 KVA, with Power Factor of 70% (0.70 PF).
This would equate to 350 KW, and 357 KVAR. Billable Consumption is 350 KWH.

PF Correction is applied at the Machine (Capacitor Bank), to improve the Power Factor from 0.70, to 0.90.

Prior to applying the PF Correction, the Power flowing through the Meter is:...
KVA (Apparent Power): 500.00 KVA,
KVAR (Reactive Power): 357.0714 KVAR,
KW (True Power): 350.00 KW,
KWH (Total Energy): 350.00 KWH

With PF Correction applied, the Power flowing through the Meter is:...
KVA (Apparent Power): 388.885 KVA,
KVAR (Reactive Power): 169.5038 KVAR,
KW (True Power): 350.00 KW,
KWH (Total Energy): 350.00 KWH.

The remaining 187.567 KVAR is "Bounced" between the Capacitor Bank and Machine "X".

PF Correction does not dramatically reduce KW draw - it only stores KVAR.

If your Facility draws excessive Reactive Power, the billing statement will reflect "Penalties" and is billed accordingly.
Reduction of drawn KVAR would reduce the $$$ billed as Penalty, but not the consumption of True Power - that will still remain as a 350 KWH usage on the Billing Statement.

So, as you can see, the KWH Meter still records 350 KWH.
To reduce consumption, the Equipment its self must be addressed.

With that in mind, on to the Lighting!



Lighting upgrades for medium and large size Facilities will eventually have a payback - sometimes having a payback within 2 or 3 Years.
The savings is not just KWH Consumption per Lighting; it also includes reduced overhead costs for Maintenance, reduction of Generated Heat, and compensation from the Utility Company for reduced usage.

Area controls (Occupancy Sensors) work great with High Efficacy Lighting, to reduce Consumption and overhead issues.
Additionally, Lighting upgrades to Luminaries > 10 Years old, may be a "2 for 1 swap".
Example; (1) 8 Lamp T5HO Hi-Bay Linear Fluorescent Fixture could replace (2) 250 Watt HPS Hi-Bay Fixtures.

The T5HO Fixture draws 438 Watts (Lamps = 432 W, Ballasts = 6 W);
The HPS Fixtures draw 540 Watts (Lamps = 500 W, Ballasts = 40 W).

Reduction in demand Wattage is 102 Watts.
Heat generated is apx. 50% of the Two HPS Fixtures.
Illumination is slightly higher from the T5HO Fixture, than the Two HPS Fixtures.

Applying Occupancy Sensors for dimming and/or shut-off will further reduce consumption and generated Heat.


Lastly, just FYI, take a look at the Interior Lighting Compliance Standards - Nonresidential Compliance Manual - AKA: "CCR Title 24, Part 6", via the following link:

Nonresidential Compliance Manual
For California's 2008
Building Energy Efficiency Standards

Per Utility Billing; take a look at a single Month's usage, to see where fees are applied, and at what levels.

Ask the Facility's Management (Accounting Admins) if you may view a Billing Statement. This will demonstrate the Billing of Consumption per type of usage, Demands, Transmission and Generation surcharging, Penalties, and all other related items.

Billed amounts in excess of $10,000.00 per Month are very common for the Projects I deal with.

Feel free to post any questions you might have, regarding my reply.

Hope this reply is of assistance to you.

Scott