 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
PermaFrost Pay Back- City of Tea Tree Gully, SA - Aug 2001
Report on Energy consumption for refrigerant air conditioning equipment treated
with PermaFrost at the City of Tea Tree Gully, South Australia
Prepared by P & M Kruger, Australian Generation Group - August 2001
NOTE: The following is the executive summary of a 14-page report available at City of Tea Tree Gully, SA: August 2001.
Tables and graphs referred to 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 Tea Tree Gully Council Offices. The results obtained were from data logger’s measuring kW, kWh,
Average kW and Peak Average kW. The bench mark for the results were based on 5 days of Pre-Testing data, compared to 18
days of Post-Testing data after treatment.
The time period in the day for testing and recording data was between the hours of 0900 to 1750 hours each day, Monday to
Friday (excluding weekends). This period was selected as the system for the Councils Offices had consistent usage patterns.
The consistent savings produced by PermaFrost started to appear in the 4th week after treatment. Then in the following 5th to 7th
week the savings increased. As can be seen in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” week 5
increased but as stated earlier that on the 24/5/01 (highlighted in green results) appears not to fit in the general pattern of energy
reduction as all the other results. If we just use Wednesday 90% figure it would. The following week averaged a 14% saving while
the final week produced a 22% 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 and at times
higher consumption results. 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.
AIM
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 Tea Tree Gully Council 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 10 days of Pre-Testing data, compared to 33 days of Post-Testing data after treatment. The data selected for the
test was between the hours of 9am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday. The reason for this period was consistent usage of systems and
Temperature data for this period.
There were 5 working days of Pre-Testing data of the selected systems, followed by 18 working days 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.
REVIEW OF DATA FROM LOGGERS
After receiving data from the logger and checking results for any anomalies and inconsistencies. Only one day had test results of
which data was used for comparison purposes, but cannot be explained. This day was 24/5/2001 which is highlighted in green on
the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table”. This day showed a 140% which indicates a 40%
increase over Pre Test data, but this did not fit in with the general trend for results achieved. If we leave this result out the 90%
result achieved on Wednesday 23/05/01 would fit in the pattern as a 10% saving for that week’s period. The pattern with out this
result, would then be very consistent through out the test period.
You will also note on this table are days highlighted in pink, which results were not used for comparisons purposes. All public
holidays and the following workday were not used due to large variables in usage. Friday’s were not used due to temperature data
being greater than plus or minus 4.5 degree’s Celsius from the average 9am to 3pm temperature when benchmarking for
comparison purposes between the Pre Test and Post Test data. If we did include Fridays the savings for this day start from 30%
and end up at 60% by the end of the Post Test Data benchmarking results.
Other days that didn’t meet the temperature requirements for comparisons are highlighted in pink. They were Thursday 17/05/01,
Tuesday 29/05/01 and Wednesday 30/05/01, these days were all ignored for benchmarking and comparison purposes.
RESULTS OF TEST:
PermaFrost Savings 18%
Average daily energy usage 381.43 kWh
Average daily savings (°C) 68.66 kWh
Cost savings per day $8.10
Cost savings per annum (260 days) $2106.00
PermaFrost Cost $4770.00
Return on Investment 44%
Pay Back period (Months) 27.2
The collection of Pre-Test data created the benchmark for the comparison. You will also note in the attachment “Post & Pre Test
Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table ” results sheet indicating the various day’s temperatures that were logged.
From this sheet, the day’s average temperature between 9am and 3pm created our Temperature benchmark. All temperatures
that were greater than plus or minus 4.5% from these figures were not used in the results when comparing. The temperatures are
highlighted at the top of the sheet in blue, as the benchmark for comparison purposes.
When reviewing the data in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” attachment, note that If the
% is greater than 100% then there is an increase in cost, but if it is lower there is a decrease in cost. The difference is the %; e.g.
110% indicates that energy consumed is 10% greater than the benchmark, while 85% indicates a 15% saving in energy from the
benchmark result. I have highlighted all increase usage % in red, while the saving are in black.
The consistent savings produced by PermaFrost started to appear in the 4th week after treatment. Then in the following 5th to 7th
week the savings increased. As can be seen in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” week 5
increased but as stated earlier that on the 24/5/01 (highlighted in green results) appears not to fit in the general pattern of energy
reduction as all the other results. If we just use Wednesday 90% figure it would. The following week averaged a 14% saving while
the final week produced a 22% saving.
Also attached are all the results of testing from the data loggers, which in turn relevant data was transposed to the “Post & Pre
Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table”. This was done in a format that can be easily seen to show a pattern of
energy consumption when comparing benchmark results with the Post Test results.
NOTE: The above is a summary of a 14-page report available at City of Tea Tree Gully, SA: August 2001.
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 Tea Tree Gully, South Australia
Prepared by P & M Kruger, Australian Generation Group - August 2001
NOTE: The following is the executive summary of a 14-page report available at City of Tea Tree Gully, SA: August 2001.
Tables and graphs referred to 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 Tea Tree Gully Council Offices. The results obtained were from data logger’s measuring kW, kWh,
Average kW and Peak Average kW. The bench mark for the results were based on 5 days of Pre-Testing data, compared to 18
days of Post-Testing data after treatment.
The time period in the day for testing and recording data was between the hours of 0900 to 1750 hours each day, Monday to
Friday (excluding weekends). This period was selected as the system for the Councils Offices had consistent usage patterns.
The consistent savings produced by PermaFrost started to appear in the 4th week after treatment. Then in the following 5th to 7th
week the savings increased. As can be seen in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” week 5
increased but as stated earlier that on the 24/5/01 (highlighted in green results) appears not to fit in the general pattern of energy
reduction as all the other results. If we just use Wednesday 90% figure it would. The following week averaged a 14% saving while
the final week produced a 22% 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 and at times
higher consumption results. 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.
AIM
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 Tea Tree Gully Council 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 10 days of Pre-Testing data, compared to 33 days of Post-Testing data after treatment. The data selected for the
test was between the hours of 9am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday. The reason for this period was consistent usage of systems and
Temperature data for this period.
There were 5 working days of Pre-Testing data of the selected systems, followed by 18 working days 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.
REVIEW OF DATA FROM LOGGERS
After receiving data from the logger and checking results for any anomalies and inconsistencies. Only one day had test results of
which data was used for comparison purposes, but cannot be explained. This day was 24/5/2001 which is highlighted in green on
the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table”. This day showed a 140% which indicates a 40%
increase over Pre Test data, but this did not fit in with the general trend for results achieved. If we leave this result out the 90%
result achieved on Wednesday 23/05/01 would fit in the pattern as a 10% saving for that week’s period. The pattern with out this
result, would then be very consistent through out the test period.
You will also note on this table are days highlighted in pink, which results were not used for comparisons purposes. All public
holidays and the following workday were not used due to large variables in usage. Friday’s were not used due to temperature data
being greater than plus or minus 4.5 degree’s Celsius from the average 9am to 3pm temperature when benchmarking for
comparison purposes between the Pre Test and Post Test data. If we did include Fridays the savings for this day start from 30%
and end up at 60% by the end of the Post Test Data benchmarking results.
Other days that didn’t meet the temperature requirements for comparisons are highlighted in pink. They were Thursday 17/05/01,
Tuesday 29/05/01 and Wednesday 30/05/01, these days were all ignored for benchmarking and comparison purposes.
RESULTS OF TEST:
PermaFrost Savings 18%
Average daily energy usage 381.43 kWh
Average daily savings (°C) 68.66 kWh
Cost savings per day $8.10
Cost savings per annum (260 days) $2106.00
PermaFrost Cost $4770.00
Return on Investment 44%
Pay Back period (Months) 27.2
The collection of Pre-Test data created the benchmark for the comparison. You will also note in the attachment “Post & Pre Test
Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table ” results sheet indicating the various day’s temperatures that were logged.
From this sheet, the day’s average temperature between 9am and 3pm created our Temperature benchmark. All temperatures
that were greater than plus or minus 4.5% from these figures were not used in the results when comparing. The temperatures are
highlighted at the top of the sheet in blue, as the benchmark for comparison purposes.
When reviewing the data in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” attachment, note that If the
% is greater than 100% then there is an increase in cost, but if it is lower there is a decrease in cost. The difference is the %; e.g.
110% indicates that energy consumed is 10% greater than the benchmark, while 85% indicates a 15% saving in energy from the
benchmark result. I have highlighted all increase usage % in red, while the saving are in black.
The consistent savings produced by PermaFrost started to appear in the 4th week after treatment. Then in the following 5th to 7th
week the savings increased. As can be seen in the “Post & Pre Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table” week 5
increased but as stated earlier that on the 24/5/01 (highlighted in green results) appears not to fit in the general pattern of energy
reduction as all the other results. If we just use Wednesday 90% figure it would. The following week averaged a 14% saving while
the final week produced a 22% saving.
Also attached are all the results of testing from the data loggers, which in turn relevant data was transposed to the “Post & Pre
Test Data kWh Comparisons & Daily Temperature Table”. This was done in a format that can be easily seen to show a pattern of
energy consumption when comparing benchmark results with the Post Test results.
NOTE: The above is a summary of a 14-page report available at City of Tea Tree Gully, SA: August 2001.
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.
