Improving Energy Efficiency in the SMSU Residence Halls
Improving Energy Efficiency in the SMSU Residence Halls:
A Recommendation to Install Occupancy Sensors in Residence Halls’ Bathrooms
Authors: Student A and Student B
December 14 , 2009
Table of Contents
Introduction
Current Situation
Research Plan
Results
Recommendation
Works Cited
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to recommend the installation of occupancy sensors in the SMSU Residence Halls’ bathrooms. By installing occupancy sensors, SMSU will become more energy efficient and will save money and energy. Our research focuses on three main points: (1) collecting data from other campuses and universities, (2) gathering data from the SMSU Physical Plant, and (3) finding information about occupancy sensors. Our research indicates that SMSU will save money if they invest in occupancy sensors for the Residence Halls’ bathrooms. The installation of the occupancy sensors would benefit SMSU in three ways: (1) by saving money on electricity bills, (2) by improving the energy efficiency of the Residence Halls, and (3) by paying for themselves (occupancy sensors).
Introduction
Sustainable development is becoming popular throughout the U.S. as citizens and organizations are becoming more aware of environmental issues. Energy efficiency is one of the biggest sustainability issues on campuses because greenhouse gases are emitted in the process of energy production (Perception of Campus). An energy efficient campus is beneficial in terms of the money and the energy that can be saved. As we save energy, we can save the money used for energy production and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
The price of energy on the Southwest Minnesota State University campus has increased and, as a result, SMSU’s net electricity bill has increased each year (Figure 3 and Figure 1). In contrast to many other universities that have started campus sustainability projects and have been making efforts to put ideas into practices, SMSU just adopted the theme of sustainability in the fall of 2009. SMSU is behind other campuses in regard to sustainability.
In order to improve the energy efficiency of the SMSU campus, we recommend the installation of occupancy sensors in the SMSU Residence Halls’ bathroom. This will allow SMSU to save energy and money used for energy production. Otherwise, the SMSU campus will continue to spend extra money on energy, which could be saved and used elsewhere.
This report includes four sections: a) current situation, b) our research plan, c) the results of our research, and d) our recommendation.
Current Situation
Southwest Minnesota State University (SMSU) is one of the many Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) schools who faces budget cuts each year. With cuts from the state government and from SMSU itself, the rising cost of virtually everything has the potential to hurt SMSU and its students (State).
The President’s Office released a summary of the budget differences for the 2009 and 2010 Fiscal Years in June 2009 (Fiscal Year). The difference in the budget from 2009 to 2010 was $1.9 million (Fiscal Year). The operating budget took an $85,000 decrease (Fiscal Year). As the budget continues to get smaller, greater measures must be taken to save money in any way possible (Fiscal Year).
The electricity bill is one area where SMSU spends a large amount of money each year. In 2003 SMSU spent $479,092 on electricity, and the net electricity bill has increased each year up to $815,955 in 2008 (Figure 1). It is estimated that SMSU will spend over one million dollars on electricity in 2009 (Senkyr).
|
Figure 1: Net Electricity Bill ($) at SMSU from 2003 through 2008 |
 |
Figure 1 shows the net electricity bill at SMSU has increased every year from 2003 to 2008.
Source: Figures on Electrical Bills and Usage at SMSU from 2003-2008.
Figure 2 shows that the demand for energy has stayed relatively stable from 2003 to 2008 (Figure 2). The average cost of energy has increased each year, causing SMSU to pay more money for the same amount of electricity (Figure 3). SMSU cannot continue to pay this much for electricity, especially when money and energy could be saved easily.
 |
||
|
||
 |
|
Research Plan
Other Campuses and Universities
Information was collected from campuses such as University of California Berkley, Santa Barbara and Irvine, Colombia University, New York University, and California State University San Bernardio. Most of the information we found regarding other universities came directly from the schools’ websites.
SMSU Energy Usage
The SMSU Physical Plant was another resource we used in our research. After talking to Linda Kulla, Office and Administrative Specialist, and Mark Senkyr, Building Maintenance Manager, via email, we visited the Physical Plant ourselves to collect data pertaining to the energy consumption in the Residence Halls. We were able to look through past electrical bills and charts that would help us in making a recommendation.
Occupancy Sensors
The research we collected on occupancy sensors came from many different resources. Government websites, databases, and journal and magazine articles contributed to our research on occupancy sensors. We were able to look through many sources to find those that would best suit our recommendations.
Results
Other Campuses’ Examples
Our research about other campuses led us to schools’ websites that described their sustainability plans. This research showed us that other schools have sustainability plans implemented and gave us practical ideas to improve SMSU’s sustainability plan.
University of California Berkeley started a campus sustainability project in 2001 and has been making progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2014. Their Strategic Energy Plan includes a lot of applicable projects to improve campus sustainability. The energy plan called to replace existing lamps on campus with more energy efficient lamps with occupancy sensor control. University of California Santa Barbara and Irvine have similar projects to improve energy efficiency (UC Strategic Energy Plan).
Columbia University upgraded their lighting system across the Morningside campus in 1994, leading to more efficient electricity use and resulting in saving more than $2.8 million per year (Perception of Campus).
California State University San Bernardio has succeeded in saving energy and money by replacing inefficient lamps with energy efficient lamps with occupancy sensor control. In total, the $1.5 million project saved the campus 1,523,000 kWh and $ 273,000 in avoided utility expenses per year. These savings also avoided 556 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions (Award Winning).
Findings on Energy Usage at the SMSU Physical Plant
Our research at the SMSU Physical Plant led us to Linda Kulla, Office and Administrative Specialist, who showed us figures about the energy usage at SMSU. The annual energy demand for the entire SMSU campus stayed relatively stable from 2003 through 2008 (Figure 2). The annual electricity bill has increased every year since 2003 (Figure 1). Also, the data collected from SMSU Physical Plant showed that the average cost per kilowatt hour is increasing every year (Figure 3). Although we found the data on the annual energy demand and the electricity bill for the entire SMSU buildings, the breakdown of the electricity bills for SMSU Residence Halls could not be found.
Occupancy Sensors
Our research indicates that many different processes and products can be implemented to increase the energy efficiency of the SMSU Residence Halls. Occupancy sensors are one of the most accessible and affordable products that can improve the energy efficiency of the Residence Halls.
Occupancy sensors are an easy solution to energy efficiency because they turn lighting on when a room is occupied and automatically turn lights off when a room goes unoccupied for a certain amount of time (Fournier). Many types of sensors exist for different purposes. The sensor that will fulfill the needs of SMSU is the passive infrared (PIR) occupancy sensor. PIR sensors detect differences in the heat of humans in action compared to the background (DiLouie). PIR sensors are most effective in smaller, enclosed spaces because these sensors have a small sightline and often don’t have a detection range larger than 15 feet (DiLouie). PIR sensors most often come in the form of wall switch sensors which replace the traditional light switch (Fournier). The wall switch detects motion as a person enters a room and turns off according to a timer (Lovorn).
Sensors have been deemed effective energy savers by different groups including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA says that energy savings can range from 30% to 90% in restrooms after occupancy sensors have been installed (DiLouie). MyTech Corporation, a company who delves in electrical products, claims that a 50% reduction in energy use is a result of occupancy sensors (The Greening). Occupancy sensors do have an initial cost, but most sensors pay for themselves within six months to five years (Occupancy Sensors). Mark Senkyr, Building Maintenance Supervisor at SMSU, said the occupancy sensors installed throughout the rest of the campus’ bathrooms would pay for themselves in three to four years (Senkyr).
Our research also indicates that when energy is saved, money is also saved. A study done by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Lighting Research Center shows the average cost savings for sixty organizations over a two week period (VonNeida, Maniccia, and Tweed). Figure 4 shows that eighty-three percent energy and roughly $40 could be saved annually when using a 10-minute occupancy timer during the daytime compared to the baseline energy figures (Figure 4). Other benefits of occupancy sensors include longer light bulb lifespan (Lighting Controls) and little to no maintenance after the sensors are installed (Fournier).
| Figure 4: Cost and Energy Savings Comparisons between Baseline (no sensor), 5-minute timers (with sensors), and 10-minute timers (with sensors) |
|
|
Annual energy cost ($) |
Annual energy cost reduction ($) |
Total daily energy use (kWh) |
Energy saved compared to baseline |
Annual energy cost ($) |
Annual energy cost reduction ($) |
|
|
Daytime |
Daytime |
Daytime |
Daytime |
Total |
Total |
|
Baseline |
90.52 |
-- |
250 |
-- |
163.52 |
-- |
|
5-minute timer |
53.44 |
37.08 |
.42 |
83% |
65.70 |
97.82 |
|
10-minute timer |
59.57 |
30.95 |
.52 |
79% |
74.75 |
88.77 |
|
Figure 4 shows that occupancy sensors with a timer do save money and energy. |
Recommendation
Bathrooms
Choosing to install occupancy sensors in the bathrooms was a logical choice. Although we did not have enough time to collect our own data on bathroom usage, a study done by the United States Environmental Protection agency says that occupancy sensors work best in areas where occupancy is intermittent and unpredictable and where light is inadvertently left on overnight.
Occupancy Sensors
After reviewing our research and looking at the benefits of occupancy sensors, we recommend the installation of occupancy sensors in the Residence Halls’ bathrooms because they will save money and energy. As stated in the Current Situation section, SMSU is faced with budget cuts and deficits and can no longer afford to pay for costs that can be avoided (Fiscal Year 2010). As the price of energy increases, it becomes more important for SMSU to invest in products that will save them money in the long run. A passive infrared sensor most suits the Residence Halls’ bathrooms because of the way the bathrooms are used. The bathrooms are small spaces and users will walk past the sensors upon entering the room. Below, a specific occupancy sensor is recommended for the Residence Halls’ bathrooms.
Leviton Decora Occupancy Switch
The occupancy sensor we recommend is a Leviton Decora Occupancy Switch shown in Figure 5, product number PR180 1LW (PR180-1LW). This switch is ideal because it is 1) relatively inexpensive, 2) has a five-year limited warranty and 3) has manual adjustment settings.
Cost
The cost of the Leviton switch is relatively inexpensive especially if bought in bulk numbers. Buying six or more switches lowers the price to $33.39 each. SMSU has twenty four houses, each with five bathrooms (Residence Life). One hundred and twenty bathrooms multiplied by $33.39 equals $4,006.80 not including shipping or installations fees.
Four-thousand dollars may seem like an expensive investment, but when compared to the payback and savings the sensors create, the cost isn’t so high. Although exact savings could not be estimated, a study done by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed a 79% energy savings with a 10-minute timer (VonNeida).
Warranty
The recommended Leviton switch has a five-year limited warranty (PR180-1LW). SMSU would benefit from this warranty because the cost to repair any switches would be virtually nothing. Although most switches don’t require any repairs after installation (Fournier), the warranty guarantees that the switch will be replaced if something does malfunction.
Manual Adjustment Settings
Manual adjustment settings allow users to manually turn on lights, but lights are automatically turned off (Lovorn). Even if the manual on switch is activated, the energy savings are still high because the timer automatically turns lights off (Lighting Controls).
Benefits
By installing occupancy sensors, SMSU will become more energy efficient and will save money and energy. Although there is an initial investment of approximately $4,000, SMSU will see savings immediately after the sensors have been installed up to 79% energy savings and $40 annually. The installation of the occupancy sensors would benefit SMSU by paying for themselves, saving money on electricity bills, and improving the energy efficiency of the Residence Halls.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our recommendation. If you have any further questions concerning our recommendation, please feel free to contact us at studenta@smsu.edu and student@smsu.edu.
Works Cited
“Award Winning Campus Lighting Retrofit at San Bernadino”. The CSU Commitment to Sustainability. June 4, 2007. October 25, 2009<http://blogs.calstate.edu/cpdc_sustainability/?p=101>.
Cosmann, Nicole, et al. “Perception of Campus Environmental Sustainability at Columbia University”. March 31, 2006. October 25, 2009<http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/pages/Campus%20sustainability%20Report.pdf>.
DiLouie, Craig. "Occupancy Sensors 101." EC&M Electrical Construction & Maintenance 106.4 (2007): 24-27. EBSCO MegaFile. Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <EC&M Electrical Construction & Maintenance>.
"Fiscal Year 2010 Draft Budget Summary." SMSU.com. Southwest Minnesota State University President's Office, June 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. <http://www.smsu.edu/Administration/President/FY10>.
Fournier, Eric. "Specify the optimal occupancy sensor." MegaFile. EBSCO, June 2008. Web. 5 Nov. 2009.
"Lighting Controls." ToolbaseServices.com. The Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing. Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Electrical-Electronics/lighting-controls>.
Lovorn, Ken. "Retrofitting Office Lighting Controls." MegaFile. EBSCO, Feb. 2009. Web. 5 Nov. 2009.
Miller, Katherine N., ed. "Occupancy Sensors." Specifier Reports 5.1 (1998): 1-40. Lighting Research Center. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/PDF/VIEW/SROS2.pdf>.
"Occupancy Sensors - Utility Savings Initiative Fact Sheet." N. pag. P2pays.org. North Carolina
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. <http://www.p2pays.org/ref/32/31316.pdf>.
"PR180-1LW PIR S-P & 3-Way Decora Wall Switch Occupancy Sensor - White."
OneStopBuy.com. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. <http://www.onestopbuy.com/leviton/PR180-1LW-5775.asp?sin=PR180-1LW>.
" Residence Life - Buildings." SMSU | Southwest Minnesota State
University. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. <http://www.smsu.edu/CampusLife/HousingResidentialLife/Index.cfm?Id=344>.
Senkyr, Mark. "Questions about Energy Consumption in the Residence Halls – For
Undergraduate Research Conference." Message to the author. 3 Nov. 2009. E-mail.
"State and federal updates- July 14, 2009." Legislative Updates. Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities, 14 July 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. <http://legislative-updates.blogspot.com/2009/07/state-and-federal-updates-july-14-2009.html>.
"The Greening of the Interior - Energy." Doi.gov. U.S. Department of the Interior Home. Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <http://www.doi.gov/greening/energy/occupy.html>.
UC Strategic Energy Plan. Newcomb Anderson McCormick, Inc. July 18, 2008.
http://www.facilities.berkeley.edu/GreenBuildings/Use_Savings/SEP/Report_final.pdf. October 25, 2009.
VonNeida, Bill, Dorene Maniccia, and Allan Tweed. An Analysis of the Energy and Cost Savings
Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Commercial Lighting Systems. Tech. Lighting Research Center, 2001. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. <http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/pdf/dorene1.pdf>.