Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Electrical Energy Conservation Opportunities for plug loads and lighting in UBC Office Buildings Yao, Natalie 2010-11-30

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Final%20Report20101223_NatalieYao.pdf [ 635.9kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108295.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108295-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108295-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108295-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108295-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108295-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108295-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108295-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108295.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report  Electrical Energy Conservation Opportunities for plug loads and lighting in UBC Office Buildings Natalie Yao University of British Columbia Clean Energy Engineering 596 Dec 23, 2010  Disclaimer: UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.  I  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Eric Mazzi. His constructive comments and logical way of thinking have been great value for me. This study would also not have been possible without the support of Campus Sustainability office, the special thank goes to Lillian Zaremba, Kara Bowen and Brenda Sawada. I would also like to thank several people for their contributions to this study: Paula Goldspink (Supply Management), Noga Levit (HS$E), Katherine Lewis (Classroom Services), Robert Padwick (IT group), David Rogers and Alvin Wai (BC Hydro’s Power Smart), and all UBC staff who helped me with my sites visits for this study.  II  Table of Contents SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Overall Purpose ................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Scope of this project .......................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Resources: ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEWS .................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Plug Load .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Retrofitting Lighting system .............................................................................................. 5 2.3 Behavior Changes.............................................................................................................. 6 3.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Building (Test Sites) Information....................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 General Administration and Services Building ............................................................ 7 3.1.2 Brock Hall Building .................................................................................................... 8 3.2 BASELINE DATA AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Electricity Consumption Patterns of GSAB ................................................................. 9 3.2.2 Brock Hall Electricity Consumption Patterns............................................................... 9 3.3 Breakdown of Electricity consumption ............................................................................ 10 4.0 POTENTIAL ENERGY-SAVING MEASURES & SAVING ESTIMATION ..................... 12 4.1 Plug Load ........................................................................................................................ 12 4.1.1 Installing Third-party desktop power management software ...................................... 12 4.1.2 Using Smart power strips .......................................................................................... 14 4.1.3 Behaviors changes .................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Lighting System .............................................................................................................. 15 4.2.1 Utilizing Lighting Control System............................................................................. 15 5.0 BUILDING TESTS AND FURTHER DATA COLLECTION ............................................. 16 5.1 Tests................................................................................................................................ 16 5.1.1 Smart Power Strips Test ............................................................................................ 17 5.1.2 Desktop Power management software Test................................................................ 19 5.2 Further Lighting Data Collection ..................................................................................... 19 6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMONDATIONS ................................................................. 22 III  7.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX A: Commercial Sector Growing End Uses and Actual and Predicted Energy Consumption 2007-2030. .......................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX B: Electricity Data ................................................................................................. 27 APPENDIX C: Picture of Smart Strip ....................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX D: RESULTS FOR SMART STRIP TESTS .......................................................... 30  List of Figures Figure 1: Commercial Sector Actual and Predicted Annual energy consumption by Office Equipment (PC). (Energy Information Administration, 2009) ...................................................... 3 Figure 2: Breakdown of Plug-Load equipment savings opportunities. (Sabo, Andrews, Lee, & Bakalars, 2007) ........................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: GSAB electricity consumption patterns. (The Pulse System) ........................................ 9 Figure 4: The electricity consumption patterns of Brock Hall. (The Pulse System) ..................... 10 Figure 5: The breakdown of electricity consumption for Plug loads and lighting in GSAB. ........ 11 Figure 6: breakdown of electricity consumption for Plug loads and lighting in Brock Hall. ........ 12 Figure 7: Picture of CCI Smart Power Strip. .............................................................................. 29  List of Tables Table 1: The plug-load and lighting electrical energy consumption breakdown for typical commercial office buildings. ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 2: The estimated energy savings by using 3rd party power management software.............. 13 Table 3: Estimated energy savings by Smart Power Strips. ........................................................ 14 Table 4: Estimated savings by improving operation practices. ................................................... 15 Table 5: Estimated energy saving by using wireless lighting controls. (* (PA consulting Inc., 2009)) ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 6: The power settings of built-in Windows power management for two tested desktops.... 18 Table 7: The potential electricity savings by optimizing the built-in power management settings. ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 8: The potential energy savings by using 3rd party desktop energy management software.(* (Mazzi, 2010)............................................................................................................................ 19  IV  Table 9: The results of percentage of lights on that are supposed to be off after hour in GSAB by multiple site inspection. ............................................................................................................. 20 Table 10: The potential electrical energy savings by turning of lights after hours. ...................... 21 Table 11: Summary of the results upon every proposed electrical energy saving measure regarding plug load and lighting. ............................................................................................... 22 Table 12: Commercial Sector Growing End Uses and Actual and Predicted Energy Consumption 2007-2030. (Energy Information Administration, 2009) (* includes miscellaneous uses, such as service station equipment, automated teller machines, telecommunications equipment, medical equipment, pumps, emergency generators, combined heat and power in commercial buildings, manufacturing performed in commercial buildings, and cooking (distillate), plus residual fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gases, coal, motor gasoline, and kerosene.) ................................................. 26 Table 13: Electricity Data of GSAB of Y08-09 and Y09-10....................................................... 27 Table 14: Electricity Data of Brock Hall of Y08-09 and Y09-10. ............................................... 28  V  SUMMARY The objectives of this study are to identify no-cost/low cost energy conservation measures regarding plug load and lighting for two UBC office buildings (General Services and Administration Building and Brock Hall) and to qualify the potential impacts of selected measures through tests on electrical energy consumptions. Based on the information that was gathered by literature reviews, subject buildings’ visits, interviews, online monitoring systems, and consultation with Power Smart experts, Campus Sustainability Office staff, a list of energy conservation measures were proposed, as well as the estimations of potential energy savings, simple payback period and cost effectiveness of savings (as dollar investment per kWh saved by dividing Net Present Value (NPV) by lifetime kWh saved) upon each proposed measure. Furthermore, on-site tests and multiple after-hours site inspections were conducted in order to qualify the actual impacts of two plug load energy conservation measures, and provide more insight information for energy conservation measures on lighting.  1  1.0 INTRODUCTION UBC staff and faculty are interested in identifying, researching and implementing no-cost and low cost measures to conserve resources at UBC-Vancouver. Two high level strategic plans-UBC’s Climate Action Plan and the UBC Sustainability Academic Strategy-identify the development and enhancement of behavior change programming on campus as immediate actions to take to conserve energy and other resources at UBC-V. Lighting has always been considered as one of the biggest contributor to electricity consumption for buildings. Although the lighting system of nearly 120 UBC’s core buildings including two test sites in this study has been retrofitted by UBC Eco Trek projects, extra energy savings on lighting system still could be achieved by utilizing more centralized control system, improving occupants’ behaviors and installing new energy saving products, etc. While all previous studies have traditionally targeted the HVAC and lighting systems as the best way to reduce the energy consumption, managing office plug loads also has the potential to significantly save the electricity consumption as well. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2009, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that the percentage of annual growth from 2007 to 2030 of the office equipment (PC) is about 1.3 percent, which is the fourth fastest growing energy end use for the commercial sector. The energy consumption for other non-PC electric office equipment is expected to grow about 3 percent each year through 2030, which is the fastest growing commercial sector energy end use. (The second and third fastest growing end uses are miscellaneous uses and ventilation respectively) (See APPENDIX A for detailed consumption data). Figure 1 shows the actual and predicted energy consumption by office equipment (PC and non-PC) 2007-2030.  2  Energy Consumption by End Use (Quadrillion Btu per Year)  Actual and predicted Energy Consumption by electric Office Equipment 2007-2030  2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2006  2007  2010  2015  2020  2025  2030  Figure 1: Commercial Sector Actual and Predicted Annual energy consumption by Office Equipment (PC). (Energy Information Administration, 2009)  1.1 Overall Purpose This project has two objectives: (1) to identify conservation measures (no-cost/low cost) at UBC-Vancouver that have either a high potential impact on energy consumption and/or a greater probability of adoption by building occupants and; (2) to quantify and obtain actual measurement data of the potential impact of selected measures through a series of building energy tests regarding lighting and plug loads.  1.2 Scope of this project Possible energy saving interventions regarding lighting and plug load, and actual impacts on building energy management by using two office buildings (Brock Hall and General Services and Administration Building) as test sites.  1.3 Methodology Literature reviews, consultation with Power Smart experts, Campus Sustainability Office staff and sites inspections to identify the possible energy saving, building energy tests and measurements by using real-time monitoring software (the Pulse System), and sub metering tools (Kill-a-Watt meters) to quantify the impacts.  3  1.4 Resources: Lillian Zaremba of UBC Campus Sustainability Office as Technical Assistance Kara Bowen of UBC Campus Sustainability Office as Building Test Coordinator David Rogers of Power Smart as "Project Sponsor" on technological aspects of plug load management Alvin Wai of Power Smart as "Project Sponsor" on technological aspects of lighting load management  2.0 LITERATURE REVIEWS 2.1 Plug Load A plug load is the energy consumed by any electronic device that is plugged into a socket. In offices, plug-load equipments usually include computers, monitors, printers, photocopiers, task lights, etc. Most of them consume electric energy in stand-by mode or even when they are shut down. Therefore, there are big opportunities to reduce the energy consumption. Of all the potential energy saving opportunities, computers and monitors account for about 70% of total energy savings opportunities for plug-load equipments in campus environment (Sabo, Andrews, Lee, & Bakalars, 2007), therefore, reducing the energy consumption by computers and monitors become the key target of plug load energysaving measures. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of the potential savings opportunities by type of plug-load equipments.  4  Breakdown of Plug-Load Equipment Savings Opportunities. 10%  Mini Refridgerators Repl. Incand. Task Lights  10%  Efficient Cold Beverage Vending  5% 3% 2%  70%  Printers Copiers Computers  Figure 2: Breakdown of Plug-Load equipment savings opportunities. (Sabo, Andrews, Lee, & Bakalars, 2007)  The amount of electricity consumed by plug load equipments is determined by the energy efficiency of the equipments and how they are operated by building occupants. Since most of them are ENERGY STAR® qualified office equipments, which have high enough energy efficiency, the more effort should put into managing and controlling their usage pattern.  2.2 Retrofitting Lighting system As mentioned before, there were lighting retrofitting projects (including replacing T12 lamps to T8 lamps) that have been done for both of the buildings in 2002 and 2006. (Eco TREK) Replacing all T8 lamps with T5 lamps could be one possible measure to further increase the lighting energy efficiency. However, there are some barriers that prevent this measure from being a good option in the near future. These barriers include: •  The life time for a project of updating T12 lamps to T8 lamps usually is 13 years (PA consulting Inc., 2009), part of energy and cost savings from the former retrofitting projects will not be realized, and a huge amount of further investment will be needed for purchasing new T5 lamps (3 to 4 times more than T8 lamps) and updating existing lights fixtures by implementing this measure in the very near future.  5  •  Although T5 lamps perform better at 35°C (95°F), the differences in performance of these two lamps are almost negligible at 25°C (77°F), which more close to room temperature. (Lighting Research Center, 2002)  •  Unlike T8 lamps that have been widely tested and tried in many applications for a relative long time, the T5 lamps are still under research and development, and lack of the testing and application data. (Lighting Solutions, 2009)  2.3 Behavior Changes Compared to technical energy conservation measures, as the result of the increasing population and demand of energy per capita, the behavior change is sometime more important and is considered as the cornerstone of a sustainable future. (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000) Unfortunately, most behavior changing programs featuring only the information campaigns have failed to prove their effectiveness and impacts on what people do (behaviors). Community-based social marketing approach, founded by Dr. Doug McKenzie-Mohr a decade ago, has emerged as an effective alternative to informationintensive campaigns for fostering sustainable behavior. There are five steps to implement this approach, which include: •  selecting behaviors to be promoted,  •  identifying barriers to the behaviors,  •  developing strategies to overcome the barriers,  •  conducting a pilot,  •  and broad scale implementation. (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000)  In this study, only the first step has been done regarding different behavior changing measures due to the limitation of time and information. Further studies and researches are still needed to complete the all five steps for this approach to achieve a more desirable improvement.  6  3.0 BACKGROUND General Administration and Services Building (GSAB) and Brock Hall were selected as test sites for this project. Information on the buildings is from the university documentation and reports wherever possible. Additional data were obtained through site visits, discussions with the campus sustainability Office and building management personnel.  3.1 Building (Test Sites) Information 3.1.1 General Administration and Services Building  General Administration and Services Building is located at 2075 Wesbrook Mall. It was built in 1969 with four floors including the basement. The whole GSAB building functions as an office building while serving the following departments: Accounts Payable, Finance, Health, Safety and Environment, Human Resources (HR), IT, Parking and Access Control Services, Supply Management, and TREK office. The total floor area is about 5,829 m2 (62,743ft2). As a result of EcoTREK retrofitting project in 2002, fluorescent fixtures account for more than 90% of the interior lighting of GSAB, and a majority of the fixtures have T8 lamps with electronic ballasts. The lighting system is controlled manually; the occupants in both the private/open office environments have been asked to turn off the lights when they are leaving. Some of the lights of the open offices are controlled by more than one switch, which allow the occupants to turn on/off the lights according to different daylight level or needs, but not every occupant knows well where these switches are located, and how the lights have been controlled by different switches. Approximately half the occupants in GSAB shut down their desktops after hours. The other half just log the desktops off and leave them on either because of needs of overnight back-ups (Supply Management department and Parking and Access Control Services department) or their personal decisions. The overnight back-ups schedule can’t change because of its old network system. All other office plug loads such as printers, copiers, coffee makers, water coolers are on 24/7, some of them go into energy save mode when they are not being used if there are build-in programs. 7  3.1.2 Brock Hall Building  Another site is Brock Hall which is located in 1874 East Mall. It is comprised of the following three parts, which no specific sub meter is available for each of them at present. The three parts are: •  Brock Hall East with an area of 5,570 m2(built in 1993)  •  Brock Hall West with an area of 2,900 m2 (built in 1940)  •  Brock Hall Annex with an area of 2,129m2 (built in 1956)  Faculty and staff hours are from 8:30 Am to 4:30 PM for both buildings. Very few staff come earlier and remains late while the facility is largely unoccupied during the nighttime and weekend hours. More student involvement is undergoing in Brock Hall building than GSAB, there are 10-15% of desktops are for students uses, and some student activities occurs in the evenings and weekends in Brock Hall. Since only one day per week has been needed for IT overnights backups and updates, it is more likely that more people in Brock Hall shut down their computer after hours than in GSAB. Both buildings are open all year around except 3 to 5-day break during Christmas.  3.2 BASELINE DATA AND ANALYSIS The data was obtained through either the Pulse on-line energy monitoring system or ION meter for the baseline data analysis. Since North Parkade also shares the same electrical meter with other parts of Brock Hall building, and has a very constant base load of 567,490 kWh/year, therefore, the electricity consumption of North Parkade has been deducted wherever is possible. Only electricity data of year 2008-2009 and year 2009-2010 has been studied for the purpose of this project. (See APPENDIX B for detailed electricity data.)  8  Electricity Consumption (kWh)  3.2.1 Electricity Consumption Patterns of GSAB  40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 2008-2009 2009-2010  15,000 10,000  Elctricity consumption (kWh)  (a) Monthly Pattern. 1,400.00 1,200.00 1,000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 Mon.  Tue.  Wed.  Thu.  Fri.  Sat.  Sun.  (b)Weekly Pattern (Oct 28, 1010-Oct 24, 2010) Figure 3: GSAB electricity consumption patterns. (The Pulse System)  3.2.2 Brock Hall Electricity Consumption Patterns  9  140,000.00 120,000.00  kWh  100,000.00 80,000.00 60,000.00  2008-2009  40,000.00  2009-2010  20,000.00 0.00  Weekly Electricity Consumption (kWh)  (a) Monthly Pattern.  4,500.00 4,000.00 3,500.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 Mon.  Tue.  Wed.  Thu.  Fri.  Sat.  Sun.  (b) Weekly Pattern. (Oct 28, 1010-Oct 24, 2010) Figure 4: The electricity consumption patterns of Brock Hall. (The Pulse System)  3.3 Breakdown of Electricity consumption There is no actual electrical energy consumption breakdown data available for two studied sites. The possible electricity breakdown data is obtained either through the information of UBC continuous optimization program of other two pilot buildings, or other studies that have been done before. The following table summarizes the typical breakdown data for plug load equipments and lighting system of buildings.  10  Description Neville Scarfe building Buchanan Tower  Plug-load/Office Equipments 11% 32%  Lighting 46% 28%  Typical office building Typical office building  16% 16%  35% 30%  Sources (SES Consulting, 2010) (SES Consulting, 2010) (BC Hydro, Questions & Anwers, 2005) (University of California, 2007)  Typical office building Typical office building  12%  33% 40%  (NRC), 2000) (Kreith, 1999)  7% (only for office equipment)  30-50%  (Krarti, 2000)  >20%  32%  (Moorefield, Frazer, & Bendt, 2008)  Typical office building Typical office building  Table 1: The plug-load and lighting electrical energy consumption breakdown for typical commercial office buildings.  These studies show that, on average, lighting requires about 35% total electrical energy consumption, and plug-load equipments account for more or less 16% of the total electricity use. The following table shows the estimated electric energy consumption for plug-loads and  Electricity Consumption (kWh)  lightings systems for two buildings of Y08-09 and Y09-10.  450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0  Plug loads Lighting Others (HVAC, etc.) Y2008-2009 Y2009-2010 GSAB  Figure 5: The breakdown of electricity consumption for Plug loads and lighting in GSAB.  11  Electricity Consumption (kWh)  1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 Plug loads  600,000  Lighting 400,000  Others (HVAC, etc.)  200,000 0 Y2008-2009 Y2009-2010 Brock Hall  Figure 6: breakdown of electricity consumption for Plug loads and lighting in Brock Hall.  4.0 POTENTIAL ENERGY-SAVING MEASURES & SAVING ESTIMATION The saving estimation data is calculated under the following assumptions: (1) there is no change of the electricity cost during the expected life time of each measure; (2) interest rate is 6%; (3) replacement period of office desktops is three years; (4) the life time of behavior change measure is one year; (5) each measure is stand-alone action.  4.1 Plug Load There are three potential measures have been considered in this study to reduce the plug loads in buildings, which are: •  installing 3rd-party desktop power management software;  •  using Smart Power Strips instead of regular power bars;  •  improving employees’ plug-load awareness and practices, therefore, cut down plug loads electric energy consumption.  4.1.1 Installing Third-party desktop power management software Numbers of software have been developed to solve the problems with implementing the energy management policies through networked desktops. Although different software 12  has different features, most of them could achieve common features whenever they are needed, which include: •  putting computers/monitors into low energy mode or sleep;  •  shutting down computers completely:  •  group-specific power-management settings;  •  wake-on-LAN capability;  •  control over internet(as well as LAN).  Although UBC control IT group just started a long-term virtualization plan to implement 1000 virtual desktops every year (Zaremba, 2010), in the interim installing third-party desktop energy management software on the desktops still with physical machines at the network level is one of the potential energy saving measures to reduce the electricity consumptions. The estimated energy saving information by this measure has been given in the table below under the assumptions that the cost of software per computer is $14 after funding by BC Hydro’s Product Incentive program, and the energy saving per computer is 320kWh/year. (BC Hydro, Two steps to big energy savings on desktop computers, 2009)  Using 3rd party desktop energy management software GSAB Brock Hall Type of energy saved Electricity Electricity Expected life time (years)* 2 2 # of computers 150 250 Annual energy savings(kWh) 48,000 80,000 Annual Energy savings($) $2059.00 $3432.00 Lifetime energy savings (kWh) 96,000 160,000 Estimated capital costs *($) $2,100 $3,500 Operation & Maintenance costs $150 $250 Payback time (years) 1.0 1.0 Net Present Value $1400.31 $2526.52 Cost effectiveness of savings($/kWh) 0.015 0.016 Table 2: The estimated energy savings by using 3rd party power management software. (* (Mazzi, 2010), (BC Hydro, Two steps to big energy savings on desktop computers, 2009) and (BC Hydro, Power Smart Product Incentive Program:All Eligible Technologies, 2010))  13  4.1.2 Using Smart power strips Unlike traditional power bars, "smart" power strips have the extra features that switch power on/off to unused equipments on the strip by equipped with a variety of monitors, timers and sensors. Assuming one current-sensing Smart Power Strip is used for one workstation in order to achieve the goal of electrical energy reduction, according BC Hydro’s estimation, there will be 100 kWh/computer/year savings after using Smart Power Strips, (BC Hydro, Two steps to big energy savings on desktop computers, 2009), the costs of each smart power strip is $10-$15 more than the price of regular power bars, the potential energy savings data shows as follows (Noted: no electricity savings by other plug loads such as monitors, printers, copiers etc have been considered for the estimation below):  Using Smart Power Strips GSAB Type of energy saved Electricity Expected life time (years)* 4 # of computers 150 Annual energy savings(kWh) 15,000 Annual Energy savings($) $644 Lifetime energy savings (kWh) 60,000 Estimated capital costs **($) $4,200-6,450 Operation & Maintenance costs 0 Payback time (years) 6.5-10 Average Net Present Value -$2770 Cost effectiveness of savings($/kWh) /  Brock Hall Electricity 4 250 25,000 $1,073 100,000 $7,000-10,750 0 6.5-10 -$5284 /  Table 3: Estimated energy savings by Smart Power Strips. (* (Mazzi, 2010), ** (BC Hydro, Power Smart Product Incentive Program:All Eligible Technologies, 2010) (BC Hydro, Two steps to big energy savings on desktop computers, 2009))  The estimated data above showed that the payback time is expected to be more than the lifetime of this measure, and the average Net Present Value is negative, then this measure seems not economically viable.  14  4.1.3 Behaviors changes The possible behaviors change could be improving the employees’ operating practices to shut down or even unplug more computers, LCD monitors and other plug load equipments after-hours. Assuming that 25% plug-loads energy reduction could be achieved by improving occupants’ operation practices, and the $500 and $850 could be needed for incentive program for GSAB and Brock Hall respectively, the estimated saving data of above potential measure shows as follows: Improving operation practices GSAB Type of energy saved Electricity Expected life time (years) 1 # of computers 150 Annual energy savings(kWh) 15,622 Annual Energy savings($) $670 Lifetime energy savings (kWh) 15,622 Estimated initial capital costs ($) $500 Operation & Maintenance costs 0 Payback time (years) 0.7 Net Present Value $132.25 Cost effectiveness of savings($/kWh) 0.0085  Brock Hall Electricity 1 250 50,302 $2,158 50,302 $850 0 0.4 $1,202.45 0.024  Table 4: Estimated savings by improving operation practices.  4.2 Lighting System 4.2.1 Utilizing Lighting Control System  There are many lighting control systems available in the market that automatically controls the lights when the area is not occupied or other light sources are available, which mainly controlled by following technologies: (1) occupancy sensors, (2) personal dimming control, and (3) daylight control. Lighting control systems that involve wiring are very expensive to install for existing buildings, therefore some wireless lighting controls technologies seem more cost  15  effective for building retrofitting projects. Moreover, wireless lighting control system works well with either or all three controlled technologies that mentioned above. The following table shows the estimated energy saving by installing wireless lighting control system by assuming that wireless ballast costs about $75 each (Teasdale, Rubinstein, Watson, & Purdy, Adapting Wireless Technology to Lighting Control and Environmental Sensing, 2005), and a combined 45% energy saving(all three technologies are working together) could be achieved. (Galasiu, Newsham, Suvagau, & Sander, 2007)  Using wireless Lighting Controls GSAB Type of energy saved Electricity Average Expected life time (years)* 10.5 Expected Lighting energy reduction 45% Annual energy savings(kWh) 61,512 Annual Energy savings($) $2,639 Lifetime energy savings (kWh) 645,876 Estimated capital costs ($) $125,140 Operation & Maintenance costs 0 Payback time (years) 47.4 Net Present Value $-105,012.54 Cost effectiveness of savings($/kWh) /  Brock Hall Electricity 10.5 45% 198,062 $8,497 2,079,651 $227,546 0 26.8 $ 56,311.39 /  Table 5: Estimated energy saving by using wireless lighting controls. (* (PA consulting Inc., 2009))  Apparently, both the estimated payback time are longer than this project’s life time, therefore, this measure is unlikely to be a practical measure for both buildings unless the technologies with lower capital costs could be available.  5.0 BUILDING TESTS AND FURTHER DATA COLLECTION 5.1 Tests A series of tests have been done intended to quantify the actual impacts of some of the conservation measures on plug loads in previous sections.  16  5.1.1 Smart Power Strips Test  Although the previous calculation for this measure did not show appealing results, field measurements were still conducted in one workstation at GSAB and one workstation at Brock Hall to qualify its actual impacts. A typical power bar and a smart power strip were used to see the impact of this measure on electricity consumption. This test included two parts, the first part is to measure the current energy consumption of a workstation without using smart power strip, and the second part is to measure the energy consumption of the same workstation using the smart power strip. The total time of this test was two weeks with one week for each part of the test. The results were recorded at 24-hour interval for further calculation. The Smart Power Strip used in this test was CCI (Coleman Cable, Inc) 2250 Joules Smart Power Strip with surge protector and six outlets. Each costs $34.99. $7 of rebate for each Smart Power Strip could be obtained from BC Hydro’s Power Smart Product Incentive Program. The manufacturer claims that the product will automatically turns off idle devices and the expected energy savings will up to $36/year. This current-sensing power bar has three outlets controlled by one control outlet. There are two uncontrolled outlets (always-on outlets) as well. Equipments plugged into the controlled outlets are turned on and off based on current changes of the control outlet. (Refer to APPENDIX C for a detailed picture) If you plug your computer into control outlet, as soon as your computer goes to sleep or is shut down, all other devices plugged into the controlled outlets such as monitors, task lights, and printers etc are shut down due to the current changes of the control outlet. As mentioned before, the devices that plug in the controlled outlets are controlled by the change of current of the control outlet, which only happens when either the hard drive is shut down or it goes to sleep or energy save mode by the Windows’ built-in power management application. Therefore the performance of Smart Power Strip during working hours completely relies on the Windows built-in power management settings. Unexpectedly, both the test workstations’ settings haven’t been adjusted before, in order to carry on this test, the built-in power management settings of the workstation in Brock 17  Hall has been adjusted for whole two-week test period, and the other one in GSAB was adjusted in the beginning of the 2nd week when Smart power Strip was employed. (Refer to the table below) The power settings of the tested desktops in GSAB and Brock Hall are as follows: GSAB ( 2nd week) Turn off the monitor after Turn off the hard disk after System stand-by after  Brock Hall  15 minutes of inactivity 30 minutes of inactivity 30 minutes of inactivity  Never  Table 6: The power settings of built-in Windows power management for two tested desktops.  Although the test results in GSAB show 0.2kWh of reduction per work day in 2nd week compared to the data of 1st week, the results in Brock Hall show that there were no changes of electricity consumption before and after using the Smart Power Strip. (See APPENDIX D) Therefore, the power reduction was more likely to be attributed to the built-in power management settings, and optimizing the desktop’s built-in power management settings turns out to be another energy conservation measure that is even better than using Smart Power Strip due to its low capital cost. The potential annual energy savings by adjusting the built-in power management settings are as follows: Activating the built-in power management settings Type of energy saved Expected life time (years) # of computers Annual energy savings(kWh) Annual Energy savings($) Lifetime energy savings (kWh) Estimated capital costs ($) Operation & Maintenance costs Payback time (years) Net Present Value Cost effectiveness of savings($/kWh)  GSAB Electricity 3 113 5,850 $250.97 17,550 $563 0 2.2 $1,875 0.107  Brock Hall Electricity 3 250 13,000 $557.70 39,000 $1,250 0 2.2 $241 0.006  Table 7: The potential electricity savings by optimizing the built-in power management settings.  18  5.1.2 Desktop Power management software Test  The Faronics Power Save has been chosen to use as an example to test out the 3rd party desktop power management software, as it is recommended by BC Hydro and part of the desktops in UBC are already using other Faronics products and familiar with its environments. The cost of this software is $7.20 per license, after deducting of $5.4 (75% license costs) from BC Hydro’s Power Smart Product Incentive Program, the actual cost of each license is $1.80. $10/year for each desktop is assumed to be the O&S costs for this measure. With the help from Robert Padwick, the Desktop Services Manager of UBC, ten Records and Registration’ desktops in Brock Hall were managed to be installed with the Faronics Power Save. According to the real energy consumption report of the software, 1.26 kWh of electricity has been saved per desktop after one-week testing period (from Nov 23, 2010 to Dec 1, 2010). Therefore, the potential energy saving data is calculated as follows: Using 3rd party desktop energy management software Type of energy saved Expected life time (years)* # of computers Annual energy savings(kWh) Annual Energy savings($) Lifetime energy savings (kWh) Estimated capital costs ($) Operation & Maintenance costs($) Payback time (years) Net Present Value ($) Cost effectiveness of savings($/kWh)  GSAB Electricity 2 150 9,828 $421.62 19,656 $270 $150 0.6 $227.99  Brock Hall Electricity 2 250 16,380 $702.70 32,760 $450 $250 0.6 $379.98  0.0116  0.0116  Table 8: The potential energy savings by using 3rd party desktop energy management software.(* (Mazzi, 2010)  5.2 Further Lighting Data Collection Since there are no very promising technical measures for GSAB to lower lighting electricity consumption currently, more observation and monitoring are needed in order to come up with behavior solutions. Since GSAB is locked after 4:30 PM every weekday, and it was difficult to arrange after-hours access with such a short time period, in order to 19  get a general ideal about the operating level of lighting after-hours, multiple exterior site inspections were chosen to gather more insight information to assess levels of lighting operation in GSAB. After two-week site inspections during weekdays after-hours (5:30 PM-5:45 PM) from outside the GSAB building, and analysis of pictures taken of four sides of the building, the findings showed that about 30% lights in average were left on(See Table 9) afterhours. Date 15-Nov-10 16-Nov-10 17-Nov-10 18-Nov-10 19-Nov-10 22-Nov-10 23-Nov-10 24-Nov-10 25-Nov-10 26-Nov-10  North Side Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri.  West Side  50% 43% 36% 36% 14% 50% 32% 36% 43% 18%  28% 24% 28% 17% 28% 31% 22% 24% 14% 9%  South Side 27% 7% 7% 7% 20% 27% 20% 20% 17% 7%  East Side 60% 64% 68% 44% 44% 52% 68% 84% 52% 36%  Table 9: The results of percentage of lights on that are supposed to be off after hour in GSAB by multiple site inspection.  The results suggested that reducing the numbers of lights on after hours will also be a good measure to reduce the electricity consumptions. Assuming the lights that are left on after hours can be reduced to 15% (Given that there might be some lights left on because of the need of staff working late), and the electricity consumptions could be reduced by 10 % due to this measure. Assuming that the cost of an incentive program is $500, the potential energy saving data is as follows:  20  Turn off the lights after hours in GSAB GSAB Electricity 1 13,669.4 $586.42 13,669.4 $500 0 0.9 $53.22 0.004  Type of energy saved Expected life time (years) Annual energy savings(kWh) Annual Energy savings($) Lifetime energy savings (kWh) Estimated capital costs ($) Operation & Maintenance costs($) Payback time (years) Net Present Value Cost effectiveness of savings($/kWh)  Table 10: The potential electrical energy savings by turning of lights after hours.  21  6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMONDATIONS This study preliminarily identified and proposed some no-cost/low cost energy (electricity) conservation measures regarding plug load and lighting for two office buildings of UBC. The findings were summarized in the following Table (shaded areas are the valid measures proved either by literature reviews or building tests): GSAB  Annual savings (kWh)  Payback period (year)  Brock Hall Cost effective ness of savings ($/kWh)  Annual savings (kWh)  Payback period (year)  Cost effectiven ess of savings ($/kWh)  Based on literature reviews Using 3rd party desktop energy management software Using Smart Power Strips Improving operation practices Using wireless Lighting Controls  48,000  1  15,622  0.7  0.015 80,000 not practical 0.0085  50,302  1  0.016  0.4  0.024  not practical Based on test results or multiple site inspections Using Smart Power Strips no electricity saving realized Activating the built-in power management settings Using 3rd party desktop energy management software Turning off the lights after hours  Total annual energy Savings (kWh)  5,850  2.2  0.107  13,000  2.2  0.006  9,828  0.6  0.0116  16,380  0.6  0.0116  13,669  0.9  0.004  n/a  n/a  n/a  44,969  1.1  0.033  79,682  1.1  0.014  Table 11: Summary of the results upon every proposed electrical energy saving measure regarding plug load and lighting.  Overall, using 3rd party desktop energy management software was approved to be the best measure through real site testing regarding plug load, although the real test results showed a lower energy savings and shorter payback time than the estimation data based on the literature reviews. The total energy (electricity) savings for all valid measures are expected to be 124,651 kWh (it included 44,969 kWh for GSAB and 79,682kWh for Brock Hall), and a total of  22  $5,347 in annual cost savings (it included $ 1,929 for GSAB and $3,418 for Brock Hall). An average simple payback period for these measures is approximately 1.1 years, and the average cost effectiveness is about $0.033/kWh for GSAB and $0.014/kWh for Brock Hall. This study is just the first step toward systematic effort for implementing above energy conservation measures. The next step may include: -Continuous monitoring and metering energy end uses in as more detailed scale as possible, since the success of any energy conservation measure, particularly the behavior changing measures will require careful consideration of the uniqueness of each department/building characteristics. Considering a huge amount of money might be needed for detailed building submetering (presumably if an office building were suitably wired, meters could be applied to lighting circuit and plug load separately, a ballpark figure of $10-20,000 is needed to submeter this building floor by floor (Zaremba, 2010)), the campus-wide application should start with one or two pilot sites(departments or buildings) to obtain enough information and feedback, then to evaluate and improve, if possible, its effectiveness. -Based on different characteristics of different building components, a team of faculty, staff, students, building maintenance staff, or administration could be built in building level. These teams can help plan and conduct specific activities like student/staff lighting/plug-loads conservation patrols, and also serve as the important support for any of the future energy audits and behavior changing programs. This could also help reduce the problems of self-reported data and lack of behavior information. -Additional research and study are needed. A review of most important barriers to adopting the existing behavior changing program is essential to understand the gaps and design any future behavior changing programs. On the other hand, follow-up surveys are needed to evaluate the efficacy after implementing any energy conservation measure.  23  7.0 REFERENCES  BC Hydro. (2010, 5 14). Occupancy Sensors. Retrieved 10 11, 2010, from BC Hydro: http://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/technology_tips/buying_guides/lighting/occupancy_sensors .html BC Hydro. (2010, 9 7-8). Power Smart Product Incentive Program:All Eligible Technologies. Retrieved 10 12, 2010, from BC Hydro: http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/psbusiness/pdf/a07080j_all_incentives.Par.0001.File.A07-080j-All-Incentives-20101001.pdf BC Hydro. (2005, Dec 13). Questions & Anwers. Retrieved 10 20, 2010, from BC Hydro: http://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/ask_a_power_smart_expert/questions_answers.html BC Hydro. (2009, 2 2). Two steps to big energy savings on desktop computers. Retrieved 10 10, 2010, from BC Hydro: http://www.bchydro.com/news/articles/conservation/two_steps_to_big_energy.html Energy Information Administration. (2009). Annual Energy Outlook 2009. Washington: U.S. Department of Energy. Galasiu, A. D., Newsham, G. R., Suvagau, C., & Sander, D. M. (2007, July). Energy Saving Lighting Control Systems for Open-Plan Offices: A Field Study. Leukos, Volume 4. , pp. Pages 729. Krarti, M. (2000). Energy Audit of Building Systems: An Engineering Approch. CRC Press LLC. Kreith, F. (1999). The CRC Handbook of Thermal Engineering. CRC Press LLC. Lighting Research Center. (2002, July). Lighting Answer. Retrieved 12 11, 2010, from NLPIP: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightingAnswers/lat5/pc7.asp Lighting Solutions. (2009). T8 versus T5 Fluorescent: A Brief Analysis. Retrieved 12 11, 2010, from Lighting Solutions: http://www.lightingsolutions.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=2 6 Mazzi, E. (2010, 12 9). Persistence values. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering Sustainable Behavior through Community-Based Social Marketing. American Psychologist , Vol. 55. No.5.531-537. Moorefield, L., Frazer, B., & Bendt, P. (2008, December). Office Plug Load Field Monitoring Report. Retrieved 10 30, 2010, from Efficient Products:  24  http://www.efficientproducts.org/reports/plugload/Ecos-Office-Plug-LoadReport_14Jul2009_DRAFT.pdf NRC), O. o. (2000). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF THE FRASER VALLEY LOOKS INTO NEW ENERGY MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES. Abbotsford, BC, Canada. PA consulting Inc. (2009). Focus on energy evaluation, business program:measure life study. Wisconsin. Sabo, C., Andrews, S., Lee, L., & Bakalars, K. (2007). Benchmarking and Best Practices in Power Management of Computers and Other Plug-Loads on Campus. Energy Program Evaluation Conference, (pp. 236-246). Chicago. SES Consulting. (2010, Oct.). Teasdale, D., Rubinstein, F., Watson, D., & Purdy, S. (2005, Oct.). Adapting Wireless Technology to Lighting Control and Environmental Sensing. Retrieved from US DOE. Teasdale, D., Rubinstein, F., Watson, D., & Purdy, S. (2005). Annual Technical Progress Report:"Adapting Wireless Technology to Lighting Control and Environmental Sensing". The Pulse System. (n.d.). University of California. (2007). Building Templates. Retrieved 10 22, 2010, from Advanced Power & Energy, UCIrvine: http://www.apep.uci.edu/der/buildingintegration/2/BuildingTemplates/Office.aspx Zaremba, L. (2010, 12 11).  25  APPENDIX A: Commercial Sector Growing End Uses and Actual and Predicted Energy Consumption 2007-2030.  Key Indicators and Consumption (Quadrillion Btu per Year)  Reference Case  Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Office Equipment (PC) 0.68 0.77 0.8 0.85 0.91 0.98 1.03 Office Equipment (non-PC) 0.61 0.67 0.82 1 1.18 1.26 1.32 Ventilation 1.51 1.57 1.68 1.85 2.01 2.1 2.17 Space Heating 2.01 2.16 2.2 2.23 2.27 2.26 2.23 Space Cooling 1.73 1.8 1.77 1.82 1.89 1.95 2.03 Water Heating 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.8 0.83 0.86 0.87 Cooking 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 Lighting 3.41 3.41 3.36 3.44 3.58 3.64 3.71 Other Uses* 5.59 5.82 6.11 6.66 7.33 7.96 8.71  Annual Growth 20072030 (percent) 1.30% 3% 1.40% 0.10% 0.50% 0.60% 0.80% 0.40% 1.80%  Table 12: Commercial Sector Growing End Uses and Actual and Predicted Energy Consumption 2007-2030. (Energy Information Administration, 2009) (* includes miscellaneous uses, such as service station equipment, automated teller machines, telecommunications equipment, medical equipment, pumps, emergency generators, combined heat and power in commercial buildings, manufacturing performed in commercial buildings, and cooking (distillate), plus residual fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gases, coal, motor gasoline, and kerosene.)  26  APPENDIX B: Electricity Data Building Name: GSAB Total Areas: Year: 09-10  Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Annual Totals  5829 Sq. Meters # days in Billing Period 31 30 31 30 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 364  Electric usage kWh 30,488.00 30,361.16 30,289.34 31,678.87 30,231.38 33,524.44 31,497.88 34,966.44 33,144.62 33,330.25 33,859.38 34,263.81 387,635.57  # days in Billing Period 31 30 31 30 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 364  Electric usage kWh 33,102.40 32,259.83 33,991.06 34,336.63 30,470.52 33,555.44 32,192.48 35,154.78 33,574.41 32,924.47 32,284.03 29,624.94 393,470.99  Electric Demand kW 75.22 76.93 78.40 81.70 82.46 84.72 82.28 78.76 75.37 71.08 71.08 76.43  Electric unit Cost $/kWh 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429  Electric Demand kW 79.67 82.17 81.65 83.51 81.43 80.74 80.98 77.76 73.28 73.08 72.05 73.07  Electric unit Cost $/kWh 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429  Load Factor 54% 55% 52% 54% 55% 53% 53% 60% 61% 63% 64% 62%  Electricity Cost $1,307.94 $1,302.49 $1,299.41 $1,359.02 $1,296.93 $1,438.20 $1,351.26 $1,500.06 $1,421.90 $1,429.87 $1,452.57 $1,469.92 $16,629.57  Year: 08-09  Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Annual Totals  Load Factor  Table 13: Electricity Data of GSAB of Y08-09 and Y09-10.  27  56% 55% 56% 57% 56% 56% 55% 61% 64% 61% 60% 56%  Electricity Cost $1,420.09 $1,383.95 $1,458.22 $1,473.04 $1,307.19 $1,439.53 $1,381.06 $1,508.14 $1,440.34 $1,412.46 $1,384.98 $1,270.91 $16,879.91  Building Name: Brock Hall Total Areas: Year: 09-10  Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Annual Totals  10599  Sq. Meter  # days in Billing Period 31 30 31 30 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 364  Electric usage kWh 100,041.29 99,345.79 113,018.55 113,541.92 95,512.17 109,362.42 97,914.17 103,222.67 94,934.67 118,715.17 122,827.42 100,441.42 1,268,877.66  # days in Billing Period 31 30 31 30 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 364  Electric usage kWh 103,560.87 99,143.32 106,385.36 107,439.20 90,782.17 102,655.42 93,431.98 99,069.98 106,786.17 125,121.55 109,321.42 102,501.67 1,246,199.11  Electric Demand kW 348.02 309.10 325.44 320.41 318.26 321.04 311.15 355.96 384.25 374.91 377.32 385.89  Electric unit Cost $/kWh 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429  Load Factor 39% 45% 47% 49% 45% 46% 44% 39% 34% 43% 44% 36%  Electricity Cost $4,291.77 $4,261.93 $4,848.50 $4,870.95 $4,097.47 $4,691.65 $4,200.52 $4,428.25 $4,072.70 $5,092.88 $5,269.30 $4,308.94 $54,434.85  Electric Demand kW 409.77 315.34 312.23 300.38 300.79 304.17 308.85 348.42 368.61 461.38 376.04 386.28  Electric unit Cost $/kWh 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429 0.0429  Load Factor 34% 44% 46% 50% 45% 45% 42% 38% 40% 36% 39% 37%  Electricity Cost $4,442.76 $4,253.25 $4,563.93 $4,609.14 $3,894.56 $4,403.92 $4,008.23 $4,250.10 $4,581.13 $5,367.71 $4,689.89 $4,397.32 $53,461.94  Year: 08-09  Month Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Annual Totals  Table 14: Electricity Data of Brock Hall of Y08-09 and Y09-10.  28  APPENDIX C: Picture of Smart Strip  Controlled Outlet  Uncontrolled outlets (Always-on outlets) Control Outlet  Figure 7: Picture of CCI Smart Power Strip.  29  APPENDIX D: RESULTS FOR SMART STRIP TESTS Department: Building : Devices included: Date  HS &E GSAB Hard drive, Monitor (1), Mobile phone charger Time  Volt  Amp  Nov.12,2010 Nov.13,2010 Nov.14, 2010 Nov.15,2010 Nov.16,2010 Nov.17,2010 Nov.18,2010 Nov.19,2010 Nov.20,2010 Nov.21,2010 Nov.22,2010  11:07 n/a n/a 16:10 16:45 16:30 16:30 16:25 n/a n/a 9:00  114.8 n/a n/a 115.7 115.2 114.7 115 114.5 n/a n/a 115.4  0.11 n/a n/a 1.65 1.59 0.11 1.59 0.72 n/a n/a 1.62  Nov.23,2010 Nov.24,2010 Nov.25,2010 Nov.26,2010  8:35 4:30 3:50 9:00  116.1 114.2 115.8 114.3  1.96 1.56 1.59 1.7  Watt BEFORE 4 n/a n/a 112 121 4 111 4 n/a n/a 115 AFTER 117 111 111 114  30  VA  Hz  PF  kWh  Hours  13 n/a n/a 179 204 13 185 13 n/a n/a 185  59.9 n/a n/a 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 n/a n/a 59.9  0.31 n/a n/a 0.62 0.62 0.31 0.6 0.31 n/a n/a 0.62  0 n/a n/a Error 2.52 3.5 4.52 5.47 n/a n/a 5.82  0.07 n/a n/a 77.25 101 125 149 173 n/a n/a 238  243 180 184 196  59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9  0.6 0.62 0.6 0.6  0.81 2.45 3.3 3.42  23.5 55.3 78.6 95.83  Department: Building : Devices included: Date BEFORE Nov.16,2010 Nov.17,2010 Nov.18,2010 Nov.19,2010 Nov.20,2010 Nov.21,2010 Nov.22,2010 AFTER Nov.22,2010 Nov.23,2010 Nov.24,2010 Nov.26,2010 Nov.26,2010  Classroom Services Brock Hall Hard Drive, Monitor (2), Mobile phone charger Time  Volt  Amp  Watt  VA  Hz  PF  kWh  Hours  15:06 15:45 15:45 16:20 n/a n/a 14:00  118.2 118.5 118.4 117.9 n/a n/a 117.4  1.65 1.63 1.64 1.67 n/a n/a 1.7  128 128 129 130 n/a n/a 128  194 194 196 197 n/a n/a 200  59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 n/a n/a 59.9  0.65 0.66 0.65 0.65 n/a n/a 0.64  0 1.29 2.47 3.82 n/a n/a 5.15  0.1 24.3 48.3 72.85 n/a n/a 142  16:30 15:47 16:20 7:48 14:00  117 117.2 117.2 117.9 116.8  1.76 1.7 1.71 1.73 1.67  131 131 132 132 129  205 199 200 202 199  59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9  0.63 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.66  0.32 1.49 2.88 4.33 5.15  2.5 25.75 50.25 89.75 96  31  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108295/manifest

Comment

Related Items