 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
PermaFrost Pay Back- City of Playford, SA - Feb 2002
Report on Energy consumption for refrigerant air conditioning equipment treated
with PermaFrost at the City of Playford, South Australia
Prepared by P & M Kruger, Australian Generation Group - February 2002
NOTE: The following is the executive summary of a 8-page report available in this summary are available in this PDF file
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report has covered the usage pattern of refrigerant air conditioning systems, before the treatment of PermaFrost. Then
compares these results to the consumption pattern of energy, after treatment with PermaFrost. The area conditioned by this
equipment was the City of Playford offices.
The results obtained were from data logger’s measuring kW, kWh, Average kW and Peak Average kW. The benchmark for the
results were based on 7 weeks of Pre-Testing data, compared to 5 weeks of Post-Testing data after treatment.
The time period in the day for testing and recording data was between 9am to 4:30pm each day, Monday to Friday (excluding
weekends). This period was selected as the system for the Councils Offices had consistent usage patterns.
indicated approximately a 19% saving.
indicated approximately a 19% saving.
From previous tests of other plant and equipment, these results are consistent with the general pattern for the treatment to begin
to take effect in a system. The results over the first 7 to 28 days after the PermaFrost treatment can produce erratic consumption
results at times. This is a common result as PermaFrost tries to establish itself in the system being treated. After establishing itself
in the system a more consistent usage pattern of energy emerges. In this case some of the results have varied savings, but are
showing a trend to savings in the last two weeks of testing at approximately 19% over the benchmark calculations.
GOAL
To compare the usage pattern of refrigerant air conditioning equipment, before and after the treatment of PermaFrost. The test
being conducted on the City of Playford Offices.
METHODS OF COMPARISON
The results obtained were from data logger’s measuring kW, kWh, Average kW and Peak Average kW. The results for comparison
were based on 7 weeks of Pre-Testing data, compared to 5 weeks of Post-Testing data after treatment. The data selected for the
test was between the hours of 9am to 4.30pm Monday to Friday. The reason for this period was consistent usage of systems and
Temperature data for this period.
There were 7 weeks of Pre-Testing data of the selected systems, followed by 5 weeks of Post-Testing data of the systems that
were selected for comparison purposes. The data was collated at 5-minute intervals, and then summarized into daily usage tables
for comparson purposes. These tables indicate each day’s consumption figures for the comparisons.
Benchmarking of Pre-Test Data, was done by grouping the average of 9am and 3pm daily temperatures. These were then
grouped into temperature groups A, B etc, as displayed in the comparison tables with the red background areas. When
benchmarking, each group required at least 3 results from the Pre Test results to be used as a benchmark. Hence only
temperature group A, met this criteria and was used for benchmarking.
REVIEW OF DATA FROM LOGGERS
After receiving data from the logger and checking results for any anomalies and inconsistencies, the only data was lost from
30/8/01 to 12/9/01 due to a malfunction of the logger not recording data when connected over this period.
RESULTS OF TEST
PermaFrost Savings 19%
Average daily energy usage 184.41
Average daily savings (°C) 35.03kWh
Cost savings per day $5.66
Cost savings per annum (260 days) $1471.60
PermaFrost Cost $3,600.00
Return on Investment 41%
The collection of Pre-Test data created the benchmark for the comparison. You will note in the attachment “Post & Pre Test Data
kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table ” results sheets indicating the various day’s temperatures that were logged. From
these sheets, the day’s average temperature between 9am and 3pm created our Temperature benchmark. All temperature groups
that did not have at least 3 results for Pre Test Data benchmarking were not used for comparison purposes. The temperatures are
highlighted in the comparison tables sheets in red.
When reviewing the data in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” attachment, note that the %
number in orange and green is the saving over the benchmark results from Pre Test results.
The consistent savings produced by PermaFrost started to appear in the 2nd week after treatment. Then in the following 3rd to
5th week the savings tended to increase. As can be seen in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature
Table”, the first 2 daily % savings indicates approximately 14% over the benchmark calculations. While the last 2 weeks of testing,
indicated approximately a 19% saving.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
After reviewing data for several premises that have used the PermaFrost product, the results obtained for this site are consistent
with other tests carried out. The savings at other sites have varied with up to 30% savings having been achieved.
The results have shown generally an increase in savings, as the product establishes itself in the systems. It was unfortunate that
not more data could be used and compared, but the results that have been used show a substantial saving on energy for the
systems that were treated.
NOTE: The above is the executive summary of a 8-page report available at City of Playford, SA: February 2002. Tables and
appendices referred to in this summary are available in this PDF file
Report on Energy consumption for refrigerant air conditioning equipment treated
with PermaFrost at the City of Playford, South Australia
Prepared by P & M Kruger, Australian Generation Group - February 2002
NOTE: The following is the executive summary of a 8-page report available in this summary are available in this PDF file
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report has covered the usage pattern of refrigerant air conditioning systems, before the treatment of PermaFrost. Then
compares these results to the consumption pattern of energy, after treatment with PermaFrost. The area conditioned by this
equipment was the City of Playford offices.
The results obtained were from data logger’s measuring kW, kWh, Average kW and Peak Average kW. The benchmark for the
results were based on 7 weeks of Pre-Testing data, compared to 5 weeks of Post-Testing data after treatment.
The time period in the day for testing and recording data was between 9am to 4:30pm each day, Monday to Friday (excluding
weekends). This period was selected as the system for the Councils Offices had consistent usage patterns.
indicated approximately a 19% saving.
indicated approximately a 19% saving.
From previous tests of other plant and equipment, these results are consistent with the general pattern for the treatment to begin
to take effect in a system. The results over the first 7 to 28 days after the PermaFrost treatment can produce erratic consumption
results at times. This is a common result as PermaFrost tries to establish itself in the system being treated. After establishing itself
in the system a more consistent usage pattern of energy emerges. In this case some of the results have varied savings, but are
showing a trend to savings in the last two weeks of testing at approximately 19% over the benchmark calculations.
GOAL
To compare the usage pattern of refrigerant air conditioning equipment, before and after the treatment of PermaFrost. The test
being conducted on the City of Playford Offices.
METHODS OF COMPARISON
The results obtained were from data logger’s measuring kW, kWh, Average kW and Peak Average kW. The results for comparison
were based on 7 weeks of Pre-Testing data, compared to 5 weeks of Post-Testing data after treatment. The data selected for the
test was between the hours of 9am to 4.30pm Monday to Friday. The reason for this period was consistent usage of systems and
Temperature data for this period.
There were 7 weeks of Pre-Testing data of the selected systems, followed by 5 weeks of Post-Testing data of the systems that
were selected for comparison purposes. The data was collated at 5-minute intervals, and then summarized into daily usage tables
for comparson purposes. These tables indicate each day’s consumption figures for the comparisons.
Benchmarking of Pre-Test Data, was done by grouping the average of 9am and 3pm daily temperatures. These were then
grouped into temperature groups A, B etc, as displayed in the comparison tables with the red background areas. When
benchmarking, each group required at least 3 results from the Pre Test results to be used as a benchmark. Hence only
temperature group A, met this criteria and was used for benchmarking.
REVIEW OF DATA FROM LOGGERS
After receiving data from the logger and checking results for any anomalies and inconsistencies, the only data was lost from
30/8/01 to 12/9/01 due to a malfunction of the logger not recording data when connected over this period.
RESULTS OF TEST
PermaFrost Savings 19%
Average daily energy usage 184.41
Average daily savings (°C) 35.03kWh
Cost savings per day $5.66
Cost savings per annum (260 days) $1471.60
PermaFrost Cost $3,600.00
Return on Investment 41%
The collection of Pre-Test data created the benchmark for the comparison. You will note in the attachment “Post & Pre Test Data
kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table ” results sheets indicating the various day’s temperatures that were logged. From
these sheets, the day’s average temperature between 9am and 3pm created our Temperature benchmark. All temperature groups
that did not have at least 3 results for Pre Test Data benchmarking were not used for comparison purposes. The temperatures are
highlighted in the comparison tables sheets in red.
When reviewing the data in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” attachment, note that the %
number in orange and green is the saving over the benchmark results from Pre Test results.
The consistent savings produced by PermaFrost started to appear in the 2nd week after treatment. Then in the following 3rd to
5th week the savings tended to increase. As can be seen in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature
Table”, the first 2 daily % savings indicates approximately 14% over the benchmark calculations. While the last 2 weeks of testing,
indicated approximately a 19% saving.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
After reviewing data for several premises that have used the PermaFrost product, the results obtained for this site are consistent
with other tests carried out. The savings at other sites have varied with up to 30% savings having been achieved.
The results have shown generally an increase in savings, as the product establishes itself in the systems. It was unfortunate that
not more data could be used and compared, but the results that have been used show a substantial saving on energy for the
systems that were treated.
NOTE: The above is the executive summary of a 8-page report available at City of Playford, SA: February 2002. Tables and
appendices referred to in this summary are available in this PDF file
Copyright © 2005-2006 PermaFrost H/A, LP All rights reserved
Copyright © 2006 Improved Energy Solutions LLC, All Rights Reserved.
