Thermal Solutions to Reduce Electricity Costs

Thermal Solutions to Reduce Electricity CostsExecutive summaryThis proclaim investigates and analyses the caloric solutions to reduce the electricity cost for of age(p) school at St Aidans Anglican Girls School. Approaches of analysis include calculating energy loss, thermic accepted and compargon current costs and rewrite costs, as well as the long-term (each term and annual) prediction for power spending. The annual electricity cost is predicted to be $23064.56. all(prenominal) calculations can be found in the cecal appendage. Results from calculated data show that 29.09% of the power consumption can be reduced by replacing 36 W lights from 18 W tube light bulbs ($4.90 for two tubes, $44.10 overall) and installing the Hampton thermal curtains ($276 in total) with pelmet boxes ($183) of five years life expectancy. Hence, they be suggested to hearten every five years to maintain the efficiency of thermal curtains. Although these installations will need $503.10 initially, t he payback will begin from the 7th month.This embrace evaluates that the current backcloth of the classroom in senior school can be altered to protect the env exhortment and minimise electricity costs. Therefore, there are some recommendations set up the Hampton thermal curtains with pelmet boxesThermal curtains should be shut all the time in order to achieve the revised costSmall technology devices (e.g. projector, printer, iron and hot glue guns) usage should be minimised to reduce power usage (e.g. turn them off instead of stand-by when not using)There are some weaknesses of the reportThermal current of furniture in the room is not considered.Monthly temperature data are not exact results, they are based on ultimo average temperature data.Number of classrooms are an approximation instead of counting imputable to variation in classroom setting (e.g. one air-conditioner, more or slight lights, fridge)Key assumptionsThe power is simulated to be used that on schooldays.The ener gy loss from the recorded data (the energy required to cool down) is assumed to be the same(p) every day.The room is assumed to be a closed system, so the thermal current of windows is equivalent to the power usage of two air-conditionings.Power Usage AnalysisIntroductionThermal (heat) energy always tends to transfer from one hot space spreading to colder surroundings space by conduction, convection and radiation (Cambridge University Press, 2014) and its flow is affected by the temperature difference. Thermal current () is the rate at which heat energy passes through a material, which is calculated as . The thermal conductivity (k) is a measure of how well the material transfers heat lower values of conductivity indicate better insulating material. Thermal insulators such as thermal curtains and double glazing windows are commonly used in homes or buildings to maintain constant room temperature by prevention of convection current and minimise energy usage. This report will investi gate, analyse and recommend thermal solutions for the school to reduce electricity usage and environmental benefits.Investigation and discussionNote All data refers to Appendix CalculationThe data was collected by using Sparkvue temperature sensors connected to a computer. The first 30 minutes of the data was disregarded out-of-pocket to the sensor world exposed to direct sunlight, leading to the extremely high temperature (especially the peak at 319pm at 47.4C) at the beginning of the data (Graph 1). Through analysis and calculations of the data, the inborn temperature change had a positive gradient (between 504pm and 604pm) which indicated the room was gaining energy as the air-conditioning turned off (347.08 W).Current power usageDuring schooldays, 18 lights were used 1 hour 43 minutes per day and two air-conditionings were used 10 hours daily on average. The lights were found to consume a comparatively low amount of energy of 1.11 kWh daily. Since the room was assumed to be a closed system, theoretically, the thermal current of the windows (137.14 kWh) should be equivalent to the power usage of air-conditioners. However, due to the information written on the air-conditioning was its upper most power usage, they would not be equal. In fact, the calculated consumption (Table 2) was less than the given data, which indicated the difference in power usage could be attributed to dissipation through the walls, floors and doors openings. Moreover, the total consumption (139.52 kWh) included the power consumption of lights and technology devices in the room to achieve high accuracy.Thermal solutionsThermal solutions are reasonable and beneficial to diminish power consumption. The 36 W light bulbs can be replaced by 18 W lights, which each consume 0.56 kWh daily. Furthermore, thermal curtains are the most common thermal products, because more internal thermal convection current will be blocked, especially when the curtains are extended so that it reaches the fl oor. This would prevent the convection current and reduce energy flow into the room (Figure 9). Double and triple glazing of windows are commonly used as well, due to vacuum between glass panes eliminating losses by conduction and convection however, installation is expensive, so thermal curtains are the most economic thermodynamic barriers to use in order to reduce the energy usage. Figure 9 No gap (Rogers A, 2011)From researching thermal curtains, the Hampton thermal curtain is thermal coated which reduces a maximum of 25% energy loss (Energy.GOV, 2012). Only the front windows have contact with direct sunlight others are all under shelter, so thermal curtains will only cover these. Hence, the Hampton thermal curtain is suggested to be installed for energy reduction, costing $276 in total. Pelmet boxes cost $183 overall, because the side of the front windows have a length of 6.02 m each, it would be reasonable to get two 6.10 m pelmet box on each side(some space for the curtain ro d). The life expectancy of thermal curtains is usually five years it is reasonable for the school to renovate new curtains every five years. It can be seen from Graph 2 that the costs maintain the same and increases by another full cost of $503.1 after renovating at the end of each five year cycle. Furthermore, the power usage with thermal solutions is calculated to be 97.25 kWh, having a 29.09% difference compared with the current settings.CBA Cost Benefit AnalysisThe CBA graph (Graph 3) shows the current cost model and revised cost model accumulating over time. The break-even billet occurs in the 7th month and when the current cost is approximately equivalent to the revised cost at $1661.8 and $1654.3, the current cost will exceed the revised cost. According to the CPI in Queensland has been fluctuating from 2007 to 2012 (Figure 10), which may continue changing in the next few years. By considering a long-term situation, Graph 4 illustrates an example of revised cost will incre ase every five years due to renovation of curtains, whilst maintaining a smaller rate of power consumption than the current cost. The power consumption for each term is calculated (Table 3-6) and used to investigate the annual revised cost of $23064.56 and 28.98% of electricity cost will be reduced from current cost in the senior school. If the electricity price increases 5% for both peak and off-peak hours, the trend would stay the same as the current cost has a higher gradient than the revised cost (Graph 4) and the fluctuation has an impact on the overall costs. (Australian Government, 2015)Figure 10 CPI Annual swap BrisbaneRecommendationsThe ultimate goal of diminishing the energy usage is to protect our environment and minimise energy consumption.ThereforeThermal curtains with pelmet boxes and light bulbs should be installed.Curtains should be shut all the time in order to achieve the revised cost.It would be the most economical way if all small technology devices are not use d at all (e.g. projector, printer, iron and hot glue guns).In conclusion, after installing the thermal solutions it is predicted to spend $23064.56 annually in the senior school, and results in saving approximately $13072 on power usage when all assumptions are valid, which will therefore reduce environment impact.