Inspection of air-conditioning systems – More than a legal requirement

Air-conditioning inspections are designed to improve efficiency and reduce electrical consumption operating costs. Here Stephen Gill, an approved air-conditioning inspector provides the background to the inspections and explains how the benefits exceed meeting a legal requirement.

Why are air-conditioning inspections required?
Building owners and managers who control air-conditioning systems have statutory obligations and duties of care in the operation and maintenance of those systems. A recent addition to these obligations for air-conditioning systems with an effective rated output of more than 12 kW is the requirement to have them regularly inspected by an approved energy assessor.

This inspection requirement stems originally from Article 9 of Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2002/91/EC which was implemented in England and Wales by the 2007 Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificate and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations.

The regulation requires that the first inspection for systems over 250kW must have happened by 4th January 2009, and that for the remaining systems over 12kW they have until January 2011.

It has been estimated that there are somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 systems with a rated output capacity of over 250 kW in the UK, and that only a fraction of these will have had the inspections by the January 2009 deadline. This is partly due to there being a lack of awareness of the regulation by building/system owners and also there still being a shortage of qualified inspectors. A possible third reason is that building/system owners are simply ignoring the regulations believing that they are unlikely to be actively policed. All the reasons are unfortunate because the aim of an inspection is to highlight improvements to the operation of the existing systems or opportunities to replace older, less energy efficient systems or over sized systems with new energy efficient systems and thereby reduce carbon emissions. So not having the inspections carried out for whatever reason is potentially an opportunity missed.

What does the inspection involve?
The first step of the inspection is to review records of the air-conditioning system. In more recent buildings, this information should be found in the building logbook or though from personal experience is that I have yet to find this is the case. Otherwise system descriptions and commissioning records may be needed to find plant types, sizes and locations. If this valuable information is not available there may be additional time and cost required in gathering the information even at the basic level of establishing what is installed.

Where information is available, this may provide useful performance factors such as the specific fan power of air-distribution systems, also any records of energy consumed or hours run may highlight excessive use and potential control issues.
The review of maintenance records and an initial visual examination of equipment allow a comparison to be made with industry good practice. Where a system is already well maintained and controlled, some aspects of the wider physical inspection may be omitted to keep costs low. However, where maintenance has not been undertaken or information is missing, there may be a need to investigate more thoroughly.
The visual inspection identifies system components, confirming that the plant matches the records. This often identifies that the information is out of date or incorrect and needs updating. As part of the inspection, the energy assessor will be look for such issues as external damage or blockage to heat exchangers, signs of leakage from refrigeration systems, and that basic operation is correct.

Estimate of cooling load
It is not a requirement of the inspections that a full design review is carried out; however rules of thumb are used to estimate the cooling load, based upon the current levels of occupancy, the activities being carried out, the IT and other heat generating equipment in use, and solar and other heat gains.
This check of the current load requirement can identify firstly opportunities to reduce these loads and secondly, opportunities to match the system more efficiently to the current load, for example by using variable-speed drives with relatively short payback times.

ReportAs part of the inspection, the energy assessor will provide a report to the building/system owner that will provide them with basic information regarding the efficiency of the air-conditioning system that they control, together with advice on how the energy efficiency or effectiveness of these systems might be improved.
Opportunities
Whilst the air-conditioning inspection itself is mandatory, it does not compel anyone to act on any advice given. However, acting upon the advice given in the report should result in attractive and cost-effective improvements that reduce the operating costs of the system.
There is a legal financial penalty for failing to have an air-conditioning system inspected by a qualified energy assessor and while this may be an incentive in itself to comply; the greater incentive must surely be the benefit of energy savings to be made.

Barack Obama set to receive ACR award– not really, but it pays to dream, sometimes!

There is an old saying that goes something like this:

‘When you wake from having a good dream, you have a choice; you can either go back to sleep and carry on dreaming, or, you can get up and try and make the dream come true’.

I am not sure what President Barack Obama was dreaming the other morning when he was awoken to be told that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but when awake, he has been consistent in his ‘call for action’ for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21^st century.

The award, made to someone so early in office, would appear to be not so much for what he has done, but in faint hope that he will succeed in the future. It has been said that he has given people everywhere ‘permission to dream [of peace] again’. The award reflects the sincere hope that these dreams will not turn into nightmares.

Of course, the more cynical observers have claimed that the award has been made simply for not being George Bush, and they may have something in that too. A change was desperately needed, and when it came, it was welcomed in some quarters, simply for that; being a change.

Whatever, the true reason for the award, I like to think that it shows that this time the committee has been proactive and forward thinking by not only rewarding an action, but by aiming to be encouraging of future actions and directions. Rightly or wrongly, this controversial approach to awards has also been taken recently in our own ACR industry.

We are an industry in change, in a changing world; where the challenges of normal economic trading need to be balanced against the aims of reducing our industry’s environmental impact. Initiatives by individuals, companies, and associations, that reduce refrigerant leaks, improve energy efficiency, and reduce direct and indirect CO2 emissions are forward thinking and are rightly applauded. It is nice to see some dreams coming true and genuine improvements being made. The IoR’s Real Zero campaign is an excellent example.

Change is taking place, and there are no awards for carrying on as we were. We may not wish to be a ‘Barack Obama’, but being likened to a ‘George Bush’ really would be a nightmare!

Free cooling - an inconvenient truth

It is a little over two years ago that a lorry driver from Kent forced the UK Government to rewrite guidance for schools that wanted to show Al Gore’s Oscar-winning climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth. The high court action was brought against the screening of the documentary in schools, claiming that it was “politically partisan” and “sentimental”.

The High Court judge – Mr Justice Burton - said that the film contained nine statements that were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus and that distributing the film without guidance to counter its “one-sided” views would breach education laws.

The nine errors stated by the judge included: that a sea -level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice “in the near future”, and that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming. Neither of these or any of the other seven errors had scientific consensus according to the judge.

Were we really surprised by the information that a former US Vice-President had not strictly been telling the truth? However, when one considers the energy guzzling US audience that the film was primarily aimed at it, the sensationalist ‘shockumentory’ approach may be forgiven if it achieves the films goals. For while the ruling may have been mildly embarrassing for the Nobel prize winner Mr Gore, the judge did not dismiss the film’s main argument which is supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have very serious consequences. Climate change costs lives, real human lives, and it is often the world’s poor that will suffer the most. To play politics with the lives of so many; to get tied up in games with semantics doesn’t help anyone in the long run.

Energy Consumption in Buildings

Whether as a consequence of Al Gore’s film or not, it does appear that public opinion in the US may be on the turn. On both sides of the pond (and every where else in the developed world for that matter), high energy consumption in buildings is a problem. Buildings world-wide consume enormous amounts of energy and the demand for new buildings continues relentlessly. Fortunately, global concerns regarding climate change, has created a sense of urgency for positive action. The path to global sustainability is forcing us to seek dramatic building energy performance improvements. By reducing building energy consumption we can help reverse the forecasted trends.

As engineers we are fortunate in that we find ourselves at a pivotal point in the history of the build environment - that is exciting, daunting and challenging. A period of change; when the old and new are forced to stand side by side to be compared; and when our accomplishments of the past will soon be replaced by the rich possibilities of the future.

The role of air conditioning in buildings will continue to be scrutinised with a leading UK Conservative politician warning the ACR industry that it is “on notice” regarding climate change and said it should not be surprised by Conservative proposals to ban new electric air-conditioning and cooling units in commercial buildings.

Free Cooling

There is not only considerable interest in challenging the concept of comfort that air conditioning delivers but also in examining ways and means that we can produce comfortable environments with minimal energy cost. One solution, passive cooling, could play a significant factor in building design in the future. By employing passive cooling techniques into modern buildings, it may be possible to eliminate mechanical cooling or at least reduce the size and cost of the equipment.

Passive cooling is based on the interaction of the building and its surroundings and can be achieved in several ways such as natural ventilation, high thermal mass with night ventilation, and evaporative cooling. This last one is well known to the ACR industry where it is better known as ‘free’ cooling.

There are a number of other free cooling systems that range from thermosyphonic cooling, to a dry cooler, which in simple terms is a free standing cooler over which outside air is drawn or blown.

The concept of free cooling is straight forward and has been used successfully for many years. It can produce attractive energy savings whenever the outside air conditions are suitable. The fact the free cooling is neither free to install nor completely free to operate is an inconvenient truth that may be overlooked as the end result of energy reduction is achieved. The fact that low energy consuming buildings are possible that incorporate ACR systems with free cooling is an inconvenient truth to those that question our ability to deliver energy efficient solutions.

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways’?

September is not traditionally the month associated with romance, so when I was given a lesson in the language of love recently, I was pleasently surprised.

On a short flight recently, I struck up a conversation with the man in the seat next who turned out to be a linguistics expert that had travelled all over the world and can speak more than a dozen languages fluently. Interesting, I thought, but unfortunately, I am sad to relate that he was in fact extremely dull, and I can only assume that he has nothing of any interest to say in any of the many languages he speaks. I couldn’t help but feel disappointed.

I was flying to meet a client and to receive a presentation from two contractors that are tendering for a new project. The first contractor had submitted an excellent proposal for the project and their presentation didn’t disappoint either. They, offered a natural refrigerant which they felt provided a better solution that an HFC, and had gone to great lengths to provide a good system COP. They also utilised some of the waste heat to be used by the client’s other processes. I was impressed.

After the presentation and the contractor had left the room, I was surprised by the client’s reaction; “That was dull wasn’t it?” he said. “I don’t think they understand what we want. We are not interested in HFCs, COPs, EERs, R717s or F-Gas Regs! Why would I want to pay extra for a higher COP?” he asked. He continued, “All I want to do is to store my product at the right temperature for as little as possible”

When I explained what all the jargon had meant in simple layman’s terms, the client was genuinely interested. “Ahhh…COP….hmmm….I like that, but why the hell didn’t they just say that they would save me money,” he moaned, “without subjecting me to all that tedious technical bull****?” “I want to save the planet as much as the next man, but if this contractor wants the job, he will have to ‘sweet-talk’ me better than that next time”.

We, in the ACR industry, have our own language, which works well enough between ourselves but can positively be a disadvantage when trying to communicate with those outside. Technical expertise and being fluent in “ACR language” is a good start, but it falls far short of the ‘sweet talking’ that the client wished for. A list of superior technical attributes is not exactly what Elizabeth Barrett Browning meant when she wrote ‘How do I love thee? Let me count the ways’!

‘COP’ may not exactly be the language of love, but when explained clearly, it may soften even the hardest end-user’s heart. Whether whispering sweet jargon is a 'transferable skill' that will work in the bed-room as the dark autumn nights start to draw in, however, is doubtful.

See: http://www.acr-news.com/blog/view_entry.asp?id=154

End-users and contractors working together are greater then the sum of the two parts

Two recent presentations, one to a group of end-users, and another in-house training session with a contractor opened my eyes to a number of energy issues.

At both presentations I asked the same questions and whilst the answers matched to some questions, they were very different for others.

For example, I asked those present that knew their car’s ‘miles per gallon’ consumption figures to put their hands up. Every one of them raised their hands. They all knew the fuel consumption of their vehicles even though most of them don’t actually pay the bill which is met by their company.

I then asked them to keep their hands up if they knew how much they paid over the total year to run their cars. Only one kept his hand up and explained that he ran his own car on a company mileage scheme and so he keep a log.

I then asked similar questions to both groups about energy consumption of refrigeration systems. By a similar simple show of hands method, we reached the following results:

The end users:

• Knew their total annual energy spend on their refrigeration systems (perhaps these were an enlightened few!),

• However, they did not the break-down of the total usage in terms of the system components and so didn’t know which items to tackle first.

• Several had new budgets allocated to spend on energy saving measures

• These budgets did not include any expenditure on maintenance as they were unaware that maintenance regimes can actually reduce energy consumption and improve efficiency.

For the contractor:

• They did not know the annual energy cost (or consumption figures) for any of the plants that they maintained or had installed

• When given an annual figure, they could calculate back (or forwards) to reach approximately the same figure from their knowledge of the components of the system. In other words, they knew which component used how much energy.

• They didn’t think that many end users had budgets for energy saving measures

• Even though they knew the energy saving advantages of a good maintenance schedule, they didn’t offer it, didn’t quantify it, and had never marketed the advantages to the client.

Whilst these answers from these two small different groups are not be entirely representative of the industry as a whole, they are interesting and thought provoking. They indicate two groups that each have certain knowledge that if shared could benefit each other.

The end user often knows the total energy bill, but doesn’t know how to break it down to identify the consumption of the individual components. On the other hand, the contractor/service provided often has the expertise to do these and to make sense of the results but may not have been given the overall consumption figures by the end user.

Perhaps the most disappointing is the lack of communication and effort in understanding the benefits of a rigorous and systematic, and more importantly, a regular approach to maintenance. It is well known that even small changes in certain parameters can have very large effects on energy consumption. For instance, a 1ºC increase in condensing temperature caused by a dirty condensing coil can increase energy consumption by 2 to 4%. Similarly, a 1ºC reduction in evaporating temperature possibly caused by heavily frosted or dirty cooling coils may increase costs by 2 to 4%.

The contractors all know this and can even demonstrate it physically if required but do not relay this message on to their customers, and when they do, the message often falls upon deaf ears, because the budget that the customer has (if they even have one) is for capital equipment, not maintenance.

If the contractor is made aware of the energy consumption figures for the plant they are maintaining, they can plan and implement a maintenance program that detects and rectifies efficient items that may other wise good unnoticed. End users may consider increasing the value of maintenance contracts if they can see that the increase is cost effective by reducing energy consumption of the system.

Finally, by having contact with these two groups, it soon becomes obvious that there are many common interests and shared goals, but that these are sometimes viewed from opposing perspectives. If the end-users and contractors/service providers learn to share the information together and take an holistic system approach, it is very possible that the significant energy savings that are evidently there to be made may actually be achieved.

Carbon offsetting – friend or foe?

In 1978, Ronald Higgins in his book ‘The Seventh Enemy: The Human Factor in the Global Crisis’ outlined the six major threats he saw facing the human race at that time. These ranged from environmental abuse to shortage of renewable resources. The seventh, and perhaps the deadliest he claimed, was apathy; our own inability to get off our backsides and do something about the problems facing us.

The ‘Seventh Enemy’ has now long been out of print and some thirty years later there is a real sense that we have moved on. Climate change issues are now openly discussed and are being tackled to some degree at both governmental and personal levels. In our industry, investment continues to be made in energy efficiency and it is encouraging that the need for training of staff and education of end-users are commonly debated topics.

The concept of carbon neutrality is probably at least a decade old but the interest by businesses in reducing and ultimately neutralising their carbon footprint has grown dramatically in the past couple of years. It is no longer just a few companies looking to improve their environmental credentials, there are also sound financial reasons for them to try and reduce their energy consumption given the instability of energy prices.

As the threats posed by climate change become more obvious, not only to scientists but also to the general public, the concept of being able to go ‘carbon neutral’ is an attractive one. Carbon neutrality offers individuals and companies the opportunity to take responsibility for the greenhouse emissions caused by their activities.

For users of refrigeration and air conditioning, it is natural that our industry should become a focal point and in response we continue to develop the tools and capabilities to rise to the challenges. We are in demand and our skills are an essential part of the solution. Or are they?

Before we get too carried away with a sense of our importance it would pay us to take a quick look over our shoulder at a new enemy lurking in the shadows. The sale of carbon neutral products and services is a rapidly growing market. Whilst the ACR industry gets caught up in arguing timetables for refrigerant phase-outs and training qualification start dates, the market for carbon neutrality is moving at a frightening pace; so fast in fact that an alternative ‘solution’ has been sought and found.

The new solution being considered by many is carbon offsetting. This solution offers individuals and companies a guilt free opportunity to consume as much as they want. Many companies, and particularly the ones that our industry deals with, have very little chance of easily becoming carbon neutral simply due to the nature of what they do. Therefore by acknowledging the damage they are causing and by paying to offset, they are seen to be doing something about it. Whether the motive is cynical or not, research has shown that being seen as green can be profitable.

The perceived advantages of carbon offsetting are so attractive to many that a multi-million pound industry has sprung up to service this requirement. A recent survey found that 73% of the British public would be willing to pay £5 of offset carbon emissions for a short-haul flight and £15 for long haul. It is only a matter of time before this willingness to pollute first and pay later reaches industrial users on a larger scale where the offsetting, and hence the figures involved are even greater.

However, when one looks closely at the carbon offset industry it is clear that these carbon experts do not agree on many things and that the carbon offset calculation itself is a guesstimate. Some experts even argue a very strong case that the whole concept of carbon offsetting fundamentally flawed and that it is impossible to state categorically that buying any carbon offset actually neutralises the damage made by greenhouse gas emissions.

The danger for the planet is that money spent on carbon offsetting is not being spent on reducing the damaging emissions in the first place. The danger for the ACR industry is that money could diverted away from projects that could genuinely reduce emissions. It may be cheaper to plant a few trees than to invest in new plant and for the ACR industry, herein lies the problem.

Is carbon offsetting a new enemy, albeit one with a smiling face? Time will tell.

Carbon is a cabaret, old chum.

“Money makes the world go around” sang Liza Minnelli in the musical ‘Cabaret’. Set in 1931 Berlin, a particularly dark and gloomy historical period with Germany polishing her guns in preparation for war, the story’s Kit Kat Klub is a decadent, seedy and immoral place where anything is for sale. Unperturbed by the growing unrest around them, the Kit Kat Klub-goers party on with raucous delight.

In 2008 London, the deepening low in the financial crisis inevitably prompted comparisons with the 1929 Wall Street crash, however the champagne parties that marked the end of the likes of Lehman Brothers had a more distinct ‘cabaret’ feel to them. The pattern of dishonesty and outright greed on the part of the financial institutions together with the staggering incompetence on the part of policy makers will make a great musical in a few years. As the FTSE-100 nosedived and British banks imploded, the Lehman Brothers PA system, known as the hoot, blared out the R.E.M. song as “It’s the End of the World as We Know It”; surely someone can choreography that into a great West-end finale?

Fun for the future perhaps, but rather depressing now, especial when one considers that similar models to these that are so spectacularly failing in the financial world form the basis of modern environmentalism. Cap and trade policies which involve putting limits on greenhouse-gas emissions and allowing companies to buy and sell the right to produce carbon is the equivalent of the sub-prime fiasco because at the end of the day no one will accept the high carbon prices that are required to make a significant dent in global warming.

Far from accepting that high fuel prices are a fair short-term trade for averting long term climate change, a little economic pain has been enough to quickly undo much of the good work done so far. The environmental movement may have made us care about global warming but they haven’t really made us willing to sacrifice anything financial tangible about it.

If the £37bn of taxpayers money to save the banks is seen as rewarding the irresponsible, what would you call the almost £7 million wasted every day by UK industry due to poor energy efficiency? This is not through lack of knowledge or awareness. As many as 80 per cent of all energy saving surveys that show significant energy savings are not being implemented even though they would produce very quick paybacks against any upfront investment. If greed fuelled the banking crisis, reticence, intransience, and let’s face it, incompetence by many energy wasting users will continue to pile on the pressure to the environment long after this current credit crisis is forgotten.

To help the money flow in the energy saving direction, the Carbon trust has announced it has doubled the maximum size of its interest-free Energy Efficiency Loans from £100,000 to £200,000 for small businesses. This will surely help those companies that are prepared to jump through the hoops to secure the loan and not worried about having them treated as ‘on balance sheet’ under statutory accounting rules and the resultant negative affect on certain key business indicators.

An alternative of funding energy saving projects is to rent the whole project from a leasing company. This allows net cost savings to be made right from the start and qualifies as an ‘operating lease’ and thus is accounted for ‘off balance sheet. For example, take a refrigeration project that can be shown to save electricity worth £30,000 a year but requires a capital investment of £60,000. The leasing company pays the £60,000 and rents the plant to the client over five years. The rental is £13,000 per annum which is more than covered by the energy saving of £30,000 per annum. So the project is cash rich from the start. Mary Poppins would perhaps see the £17,000 annual saving is the ‘spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down’; carbon reduction ‘in the most delightful way’.

Many organisations have trapped themselves into a dead-end by only considering payback periods of eighteen months or less. This is ‘cutting your nose off to spite your face’ when you consider that under some rental schemes, provided the project has a break even of four and a half years or less then the rental payments will be more than covered by the energy savings.

There is money available in the forms of loans and other financial schemes available to make significant energy reduction a possibility. Perhaps money really will 'help the world go around' after all.