Summary

Internet-Based Refrigeration Monitoring System

Refrigeration Monitoring System: Advanced Internet-Based vs. Local Basic Monitoring

Monitoring system to assess performance and energy use for medium and large cold storage units.

Synopsis:

National Resource Management offers an Internet-based refrigeration monitoring and control system for medium to large cold storage facilities. This technology allows users to monitor and control fans and compressors, track internal temperatures, and monitor energy consumption. It also provides text-message alerts in the event of a failure or fault detection.

Southern California Edison reported excellent results for this technology in 2009 (SCE, 2009). The potential for energy savings comes from the visibility and control of compressors, evaporator fans and other equipment operation. In SCE's study, compressor run times were reduced an average of 26.7% while evaporator fan run times were reduced an average of 57.4%. After activating the monitoring system, the product temperatures were more consistent throughout the coolers and averaged closer to the desired setpoint.

Energy Savings: 18%

Energy Savings Rating: Limited Assessment What's this?

Level	Status	Description
1	Concept not validated	Claims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts.
2	Concept validated:	An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles.
3	Limited assessment	An unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline.
4	Extensive assessment	Additional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions.
5	Comprehensive analysis	Results of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications.
6	Approved measure	Protocols for technology application are established and approved.

Simple Payback, New Construction (years): 5.1 What's this?

Simple Payback, Retrofit (years): 5.1 What's this?

Simple Payback is one tool used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a proposed investment, such as the investment in an energy efficient technology. Simple payback indicates how many years it will take for the initial investment to "pay itself back." The basic formula for calculating a simple payback is:

Simple Payback = Incremental First Cost / Annual Savings

The Incremental Cost is determined by subtracting the Baseline First Cost from the Measure First Cost.

For New Construction, the Baseline First Cost is the cost to purchase the standard practice technology. The Measure First Cost is the cost of the alternative, more energy efficienct technology. Installation costs are not included, as it is assumed that installation costs are approximately the same for the Baseline and the Emerging Technology.

For Retrofit scenarios, the Baseline First Cost is $0, since the baseline scenario is to leave the existing equipment in place. The Emerging Technology First Cost is the Measure First Cost plus Installation Cost (the cost of the replacement technology, plus the labor cost to install it). Retrofit scenarios generally have a higher First Cost and longer Simple Paybacks than New Construction scenarios.

Simple Paybacks are called "simple" because they do not include details such as the time value of money or inflation, and often do not include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs or end-of-life disposal costs. However, they can still provide a powerful tool for a quick assessment of a proposed measure. These paybacks are rough estimates based upon best available data, and should be treated with caution. For major financial decisions, it is suggested that a full Lifecycle Cost Analysis be performed which includes the unique details of your situation.

The energy savings estimates are based upon an electric rate of $.09/kWh, and are calculated by comparing the range of estimated energy savings to the baseline energy use. For most technologies, this results in "Typical," "Fast" and "Slow" payback estimates, corresponding with the "Typical," "High" and "Low" estimates of energy savings, respectively.

Details

Internet-Based Refrigeration Monitoring System

Refrigeration Monitoring System: Advanced Internet-Based vs. Local Basic Monitoring

Monitoring system to assess performance and energy use for medium and large cold storage units.

Item ID: 346

Sector: Commercial, Industrial

Energy System: Refrigeration--Sensors & Controls

Technical Advisory Group: 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
Average TAG Rating: 2.8 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 09/29/2011
TAG Rating Commentary:

I have limited insight into this one. I am not sure it is emerging - Cascade Engineering has already made a showcase of this with Sysco and others, if this is what I think it is. Does not have fit BPA priority for commercial/residential sector emphasis.
Remote energy monitoring is only so good unless there are "eyes and ears" on site to confirm what the screen is telling the person in charge. "Eyes and ears" can be video assisted technology to a traditional platform of remote controls technology, but without some actual validation of screen data, it is still somewhat limited.

Synopsis:

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description: Un-monitored Refrigeration System
Baseline Energy Use: 730000 kWh per year per facility

Comments:

The facility is that described in the Southern California Edison study of the National Resource Management internet monitoring software (SCE, 2009). This facility included 12 zones and 5600 square feet of cooler space. The energy consumption data is "post-maintenance" but without any additional control technology.

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims:

"Typical" Savings: 18%
Savings Range: From 8% to 35%

Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 18%
Low and High Energy Savings: 8% to 35%
Energy Savings Reliability: 3 - Limited Assessment

Comments:

Energy Use of Emerging Technology:

598,600 kWh per facility per year What's this?

Energy Use of an Emerging Technology is based upon the following algorithm.

Baseline Energy Use - (Baseline Energy Use * Best Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings.))

Technical Potential:
Units: facility
Currently no data available.

First Cost:

Installed first cost per: facility
Emerging Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $60000.00
Emerging Technology Installation Cost (Labor, Disposal, Etc.): $0.00
Baseline Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $0.00

Comments:

Costs will vary considerably depending on the specific requirements for each site. It will be more expensive to monitor large sites with many pieces of energy-intensive equipment than small sites with less complicated equipment configurations. The cost provided above is for a 12 zone facility with a total of 5600 square feet of coolers. This is the same facility which is described in the Southern California Edison study (SCE, 2009), and project costs were obtained from the vendor NRM. NRM indicates that project cost is largely driven by the number of "zones" to be monitored and controlled, but that the physical layouts of the coolers/freezers, the physical layout of the facility, and the costs of labor all are significant additional drivers of cost. Data from NRM suggests that the cost per zone is between $5,000 and $6,000 on average.

NRM indicates that in all installations including new construction projects, their equipment is installed "on top of" the existing controls and thermostats. This means that even for new construction, the incremental installation cost is equal to the full cost of the product and labor. This is reflected above in the full cost of the system being placed in the "equipment cost" category. This also means that the facility owners have the ability to set the monitoring equipment in "bypass" mode and allow the baseline controls (thermostats, etc.) to resume control.

Cost Effectiveness:

Simple payback, new construction (years): 5.1

Simple payback, retrofit (years): 5.1

What's this?

Cost Effectiveness is calculated using baseline energy use, best estimate of typical energy savings, and first cost. It does not account for factors such as impacts on O&M costs (which could be significant if product life is greatly extended) or savings of non-electric fuels such as natural gas. Actual overall cost effectiveness could be significantly different based on these other factors.

Comments:

The manufacturer suggests typical paybacks range from one to four years, depending upon electric rates and the particular deployment scenario. New Construction and Retrofit paybacks are identical, as the systems are typically installed "on top of" rather than "instead of" existing traditional controls. This means that the full cost of the system must be counted in both New Construction and Retrofits.

Detailed Description:

Internet Based Refrigeration Monitoring and Controls replaces traditional on-site monitoring and control, mostly for large commercial facilities with multiple refrigerators and freezers. Several vendors offer variations of this basic system, and some of these offerings are capable of monitoring and controlling all major end uses within a facility including lights and HVAC. The software can be programmed to alert managers or maintenance staff if a fault condition in a piece of equipment is detected, either online or by a text message to cell phone. The rapid identification of faulty equipment or of freezer doors being left open can provide significant energy and financial savings. In addition, these systems are able to continuously monitor the internal temperatures of the controlled cooling units, optimizing defrost cycles and controlling compressors to reduce energy consumption (NRM, 2012). Third party evaluations of these monitoring systems by utilities have verified energy savings (SCE, 2009).

This Internet-Based Refrigeration Monitoring and Control System (IBRMCS) can deliver energy savings by providing off-site visibility and control of compressors, evaporator fans and other equipment where previously an operator had to be on-site to monitor and manage equipment. This capability delivers energy savings which range from approximately 8% to 35%, as claimed by the manufacturer and verified by utility testing (SCE, 2009).

Multiple vendors offer offsite internet enabled monitoring, including National Resource Management (NRM, 2012), HI Solutions (HIS, 2004) and Genesis International (Genesis, 2013).One example of this technology is the Remote Site Manager from National Resource Management (NRM). NRM states of their product (NRM, 2012) that it allows for facility owners to monitor, control and manage nearly any energy-consuming device in their facility, including HVAC and lighting. The system allows for automated alerts and alarms to be delivered via text message or email to facilities managers. NRM also indicated that their product was compatible with utility triggered demand response events, and could even be set up to respond automatically to utility control signals.

Standard Practice:

Standard practice is the use of traditional basic controls (temperature, head pressure, timers) without any mechanism for remote oversight or control.

Development Status:

This technology is commercially available yet underutilized in the Northwest. It was tested by Southern California Edison in 2009 (SCE, 2009), which determined that the technology does provide significant energy savings.

Non-Energy Benefits:

In addition to providing energy savings, remote monitoring strategies allow for the automated generation of reports necessary to meet FDA food-quality regulations, help to prevent the loss of product and reduce maintenance and operations costs by providing early detection of equipment failure. Some remote monitoring systems are designed to monitor other equipment in addition to freezers and coolers, such as air conditioners and lighting. This allows for the total facility energy consumption to be monitored more closely, and allows entities with a costly demand charge to address peak usage issues if desired (NRM, 2012).

End User Drawbacks:

Upfront capital costs. Could possibly be addressed through on-bill financing from utilities.
Reluctance of some utilities to provide rebates for controls. May be addressed with performance-based rebates using the system's tracking capabilities

Operations and Maintenance Costs:

No information available.

Effective Life:

Anticipated Lifespan of Emerging Technology: 10 years

Comments:

Typically 10 years

Competing Technologies:

Traditional energy management systems.

Reference and Citations:

SCE, 12/01/2009. Evaluation of an Internet-Based Refrigeration Monitoring and Control System
Southern California Edison
Special Notes: Provides savings estimates for internet refrigeration monitoring.

NRM, 01/01/2012. Remote Site Manager
National Resource Management
Special Notes: Vendor website for web monitoring solution.

NRM, 11/27/2007. Case Study: NRM's Remote Site Manager - C-Store
National Resource Management
Special Notes: Manufacturer case study claiming 33% energy savings for convenience store.

NRM, 11/27/2007. Case Study: NRM's Remote Site Manager - Grocery Store, Sacramento, CA
National Resource Management
Special Notes: Manufacturer case study claiming 8% energy savings at a Grocery Outlet.

NRM, 11/27/2007. National Resource Management Case Study - NRM's Remote Site Manager (RSM) - Produce Wholesaler, Sacramento, CA
National Resource Management
Special Notes: Savings claims of 22% in this case study.

Smartfreeze, 12/16/2010. Information System for the Remote Monitoring and Control of Professional Refrigerators
Smartfreeze, Inc.
Special Notes: Another internet monitoring system.

HIS, 01/22/2004. Field Commander Refrigeration Monitoring and Control System
HI Solutions
Special Notes: Another monitoring system offered by HI Solutions, Inc.

Genesis, 01/01/2013. Remote Monitoring Communications
Genesis International, Inc.
Special Notes: Remote monitoring software from Genesis International.

SMUD, 11/07/2006. Energy Efficiency & Customer Research & Development - Technology Brief, CoolTrol
Sacremento Municipal Utility District
Special Notes: SMUD briefing about the CoolTrol monitoring and control technology.

Rank & Scores

Internet-Based Refrigeration Monitoring System

2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)

Technical Advisory Group: 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
TAG Ranking: 12 out of 59
Average TAG Rating: 2.8 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 09/29/2011
TAG Rating Commentary:

I have limited insight into this one. I am not sure it is emerging - Cascade Engineering has already made a showcase of this with Sysco and others, if this is what I think it is. Does not have fit BPA priority for commercial/residential sector emphasis.
Remote energy monitoring is only so good unless there are "eyes and ears" on site to confirm what the screen is telling the person in charge. "Eyes and ears" can be video assisted technology to a traditional platform of remote controls technology, but without some actual validation of screen data, it is still somewhat limited.

Market Potential

Internet-Based Refrigeration Monitoring System

Last Edited:

12/6/2012 3:25:02 PM by AngelaP

Market Segment:

This emerging technology is intended to be applied in refrigerated warehouses and grocery stores.

Regional Fit:

This technology is not regionally dependent and can be applied anywhere.

Zones:

Heating Zone 1, Heating Zone 2, Heating Zone 3, Cooling Zone 1, Cooling Zone 2, Cooling Zone 3

Load Shape:

RefrigWarehouseGrock

Performance Trajectory:

Gradual improvement. It will be vital to put together a program to get the word out and provide training for engineers and contractors.

Cost Trajectory:

Probably no change in cost over the next five years. This technology will have to gain some traction and have a proven track record before volume increases enough to bring costs down.

Product Supply and Installation Risk:

There will not be a shortage. Plenty of companies can offer this service.

Technical Dominance:

There are no competing technologies.

Target Customer:

Engineers, architects, vendors, plant managers, and contractors.

Market Channels:

Enterprise management systems providers. The main barriers are cost and customer awareness of the technology. Education and training about the benefits of such systems could help overcome the awareness issue.

Regulatory Issues:

There are no known code, standard or regulation issues.

Other risks and barriers:

The main barrier is a lack of uniform guidelines for specifiers to make implementation easy and uniform from project to project.

Additional Information:

Product: Remote Site Manager by NRM

http://www.nrminc.com/national_resource_management_products_rsm_remote_site_manager.html

Completed:

12/6/2012 3:25:02 PM by AngelaP