Battery Charger Study - mn.govmn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-franklin-battery-charger.pdf ·...
34
Welcome Conservation Applied Research & Development (CARD) Webinar
Battery Charger Study - mn.govmn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-franklin-battery-charger.pdf · Industrial Battery Charger Field Study. Minnesota Conservation Applied Research and Development
I am Mary Sue Lobenstein, the R&D Program Administrator at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources. With me today is Mark Garofano who is an Energy Engineer at the Division of Energy Resources where he performs engineering reviews of custom efficiency projects, and leads the Department’s efforts to maintain and update the technical reference manual that utilities use to calculate the savings and cost-effectiveness of their conservation improvement programs. Mark is also the project manager on the research that is the subject of this webinar. Our presenter today is Joe Plummer from Franklin Energy. Joe is a program manager providing technical support and consulting services for Minnesota utilities and the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Joe’s work includes analysis of custom incentives, commercial and small business energy audits, deemed savings development, and managing CARD projects.
Image: Nick Youngson http://www.picserver.org/w/webinar.html
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Before we start, I’d like to go over a few webinar basics All attendees will be in listen-only mode As questions occur to you during the presentation, type them into the question box in the GoToWebinar panel and send them to us. We will address all questions at the end of the presentation. If for some reason we don’t get to all questions we will answer them later and email all participants a copy of the Q&A from the webinar. This webinar is being recorded and will be available on our website for viewing on demand. Finally, the slide deck for this webinar is available as a handout on your GoToWebinar panel, and you can download it at any time during the presentation.
Minnesota Applied Research & Development Fund
State Capitol Image: Courtesy Minnesota Department of Administration
• Purpose to help Minnesota utilities achieve 1.5% energy savings goal by:
• Identifying new technologies or strategies to maximize energy savings;
• Improving effectiveness of energy conservation programs;• Documenting CO2 reductions from energy conservation
programs.Minnesota Statutes §216B.241, Subd. 1e
• Utility may reach its energy savings goal• Directly through its Conservation Improvement Program (CIP)• Indirectly through energy codes, appliance standards, behavior,
and other market transformation programs
4
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This webinar is one in an ongoing series designed to summarize the results from research projects funded by Minnesota’s Applied Research and Development Fund. The Applied Research and Development Fund was established in the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007. Its purpose of the fund is to help Minnesota utilities achieve their 1.5% energy savings goal by: Identifying new technologies and strategies; Improving the effectiveness of utility conservation programs; and Documenting CO2 reductions from conservation programs. A utility may reach its annual energy savings goal Directly, through its Conservation Improvement Program (CIP), or Indirectly, through energy codes, appliance standards, behavior, and other market transformation programs.
$2.6 million of this fund is set aside annually for the CARD program which awards research grants in a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Since the legislation was enacted, the CARD program has: Had 8 funding cycles, with 22 RFPs posted; Received nearly 380 proposals; and Funded 92 research projects, representing over $21 million in research dollars. As you can see by the pie chart, projects funded to date have been in all building sectors. The subject of today’s webinar is the commercial/industrial sector and reports on a project which investigated whether industrial high frequency battery chargers are a viable energy savings measure that can be included in utility Conservation Improvement Programs in Minnesota. I’ll turn it over to Joe now to tell us details about the project and it’s results.
Industrial Battery Charger Field Study
Minnesota Conservation Applied Research and Development (CARD) Program
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Thank you, Mary Sue, and thank you to the Minnesota Department of Commerce for providing us with this opportunity. I’m here today to give an overview of a field study we performed on behalf of the CARD program on industrial battery chargers for lift-trucks. The idea for this field study was hatched after a vendor presentation on high frequency battery chargers a few years ago. The vendor talked about how high frequency chargers can save energy compared to older, less efficient technologies, and how they have the capability to charge batteries at much faster rates. Well, we wanted to test these claims by measuring the actual performance of high frequency chargers in the field. If our measurements confirmed the vendor’s claims, it would add to the credibility of high frequency chargers as an energy efficiency measure.
• Background
• Past Research
• Methodology
• Findings
• Conclusions and Recommendations
TOPICS
Presenter
Presentation Notes
My talk today will cover these main topics: background on the various types of industrial battery chargers, an overview of past research on high frequency chargers, the methodology of our field study, our findings, and finally, our conclusions and recommendations regarding inclusion of high frequency charges in CIP.
BACKGROUND
Presenter
Presentation Notes
First, some background on industrial battery chargers.
Background
• Battery-powered lift-trucks are very common in industry
• A manufacturing facility typically has at least one
• > 7,300 manufacturing facilities in MN
• A battery charger with regular usage may consume about 15,000 kWh per year
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Battery-powered lift-trucks are very common throughout the commercial/industrial sector. They are commonly used in manufacturing, warehouses, airports, and other facilities for material handling. To give you a sense of their numbers, it is our experience that the typical manufacturing facility has at least one lift-truck, and there are over 7,300 manufacturing facilities in Minnesota according to US Census data. Large facilities may have dozens of lift-trucks and battery chargers. The energy consumed by lift-trucks can be very high. One estimate from California puts it at 15,000 kWh per year for a typical unit. Of course, the actual energy use for a given facility may differ significantly as it is influenced by factors such as how heavily lift-trucks are used in the facility, and how many operating shifts per day are run.
Background
• A battery charger’s basic function is to convert AC to DC
• Control circuitry is needed to prevent damage to battery
• Most existing chargers are ferroresonant (FR) or silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR)
• High frequency (HF) chargers are gaining market share
• Promoted as more energy efficient, offering faster charging capability
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The basic function of all battery chargers is to convert alternating current, or AC, electricity from the utility supply to direct current, or DC, electricity and deliver it to the battery. Invariably, some energy is lost in this process, which is where energy efficiency considerations come into play. All battery chargers also have control circuitry that controls the rate of charging and ensures the battery is not over-charged, which can damage it. Most industrial chargers in use today, over 75% by some estimates, are ferroresonant or silicon-controlled rectifier types. However, a new technology, high frequency chargers, are now available and gaining market share. This type of charger is promoted as being more energy efficient than ferro or SCR chargers, and some manufacturers also promote it as being capable of higher charging rates.
Background
9/25/2017
• Facilities that regularly use lift-trucks commonly use a conventional charging approach
– Lift-truck batteries are run down to low charge levels (ideally > 20%), then slowly recharged during off-peak hours
– Facilities with heavy lift-truck usage and multiple shifts may need to change batteries daily
– Changing batteries increases costs, hurts productivity, and presents health and safety risks
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Many facilities today charge their lift-truck batteries using an approach called conventional charging. Under conventional charging, lift-truck batteries are run down to low charge levels, ideally no lower than about 20%, then plugged in to the charger overnight, during off-peak hours, to slowly bring the battery back to an acceptable charge level. The problem with this approach is that some facilities must have their operators change batteries, swapping depleted batteries with fresh ones to continue operating their lift-trucks, while the depleted batteries are recharged. This has an O&M cost impact and hurts productivity. There are also health and safety risks associated with battery changing.
Background
• Some chargers offer “fast charging” or “opportunity charging” capability
• Opportunity charging means plugging in during breaks in the workday, and rapidly charging the battery banks to a sufficient level
• Avoids the need for battery change-outs, purchasing additional batteries
• EPRI studies demonstrated productivity and safety benefits of fast charging
• However, higher charging rates and shift to peak periods may drive up demand charges
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In contrast, high frequency chargers, and as we learned from this study, some Ferro and SCR chargers, are sometimes advertised as offering “fast charging” or “opportunity charging” capability. Opportunity charging means plugging in during breaks in the workday, and rapidly recharging the batteries to sufficient levels. Opportunity avoids the need for battery change-outs and the associated cost and productivity impacts. The Electric Power Research Institute, or “EPRI”, performed large demonstration projects in the early 2000s demonstrating various workplace, non-energy benefits from fast charging. While these benefits exist, customers and utilities should be aware that there is the potential for higher demand charges with opportunity charging, due to higher charging rates and shifting charging events to peak periods. Higher demand charges could erode some of the energy savings from upgrading to HF chargers.
Background
• There are four types of industrial battery chargers
There are four types of industrial battery chargers: ferroresonant, silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR), hybrid, and high frequency. As this table indicates, ferro and SCR chargers are thought to account for about 80% of existing stock. By the way, these numbers are from a PG&E study from 2009 and represent the California market at that time, but the local distributors we spoke with indicated that they are roughly correct for Minnesota. The power conversion efficiency and cost ranges here are also from the PG&E study. As you can see, high frequency chargers were shown to be about 7 percentage points more efficient than FR or SCR on average. However, their median cost is also higher.
Background
• Battery charger energy efficiency metrics:
• Charge Return Factor (ideal range is 1.05 to 1.15)
• Power Conversion Efficiency
• Maintenance Power
• No Battery Power
• Power Factor (ideal power factor is 1)
• Charge Return Factor and Power Conversion Efficiency are most important predictors of energy use for most facilities
• HF chargers thought to have technological advantage in Power Conversion Efficiency and Power Factor
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Battery charger energy efficiency is commonly expressed in terms of 5 different metrics: Charge return factor, which compares the amp-hours returned during a charge cycle to the amp-hours delivered by the battery during discharge. Power conversion efficiency, which is the ratio of DC output power to AC input power. Maintenance power, which is the average power consumed by the charger when the battery is connected but not actively charging. No battery power, which is simply the average power consumed by the charger with no battery connected. Power factor, which essentially measures the phase alignment of voltage and current for AC electricity. The ideal power factor is 1. The first two metrics, charge return factor and power conversion efficiency, are usually the strongest predictors of charge energy use. High frequency chargers are thought to have a technological advantage in power conversion efficiency and power factor. The remaining metrics are a function of how well the battery charger control circuitry is designed, and are not a function of technology.
Background
• PG&E completed formalized testing of industrial battery chargers in 2009 that demonstrated higher energy efficiency of HF chargers
• Our goal was to test HF chargers in actual facilities
• Compare energy use of HF chargers to existing chargers
• See if operators switch from conventional charging to opportunity charging, and measure impact on peak demand
• Assess any non-energy benefits from opportunity charging
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The energy efficiency of high frequency chargers was studied in a systematic way by PG&E. Formalized test results were released in 2009 that demonstrated a higher average efficiency for high frequency chargers relative to older technologies. Our goal with this study was to investigate the performance of high frequency chargers in actual facilities, from both an energy perspective and a non-energy perspective. Aside from measuring energy savings, we also wanted to assess any productivity or O&M benefits to the facilities as a result of the capability to opportunity charge with high frequency chargers.
PAST RESEARCH
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Before getting into the field testing, I wanted to touch briefly on past research on industrial high frequency battery chargers.
Past Research
• PG&E studies demonstrated energy efficiency benefits of HF chargers
• Began with development of a consumer battery charger test procedure by the California Energy Commission (CEC)
• PG&E and SCE adapted the procedure for industrial battery chargers; formerly adopted by the CEC in December 2008
• PG&E Emerging Technologies Program sponsored formalized testing of industrial battery chargers, results published in 2009
Presenter
Presentation Notes
I have mentioned the PG&E studies a couple of times now. These studies really laid the groundwork for high frequency chargers as an energy efficiency measure. These studies grew out of the development of a battery charger test procedure, initially for consumer battery chargers, by the California Energy Commission, in the early 2000s. The utility companies PG&E and SCE adapted this procedure for industrial battery chargers, and it was eventually adopted into state law in December 2008. PG&E’s Emerging Technologies Program sponsored formalized testing of industrial battery chargers, and the results were published in 2009.
Orange fill indicates within ideal rangeYellow fill indicates best (highest or lowest)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This table summarizes the 2009 PG&E test results across the five different energy efficiency metrics I discussed previously. Here, I have orange fill indicating where the average charge return factor fell within the ideal range of 1.05 – 1.15. Yellow fill indicates the best performance in each metric, which could mean highest or lowest depending on the metric. As you can see, high frequency chargers were best in class in 3 out of 4 parameters, and had an ideal charge return factor within the ideal range. On average, their power conversion efficiency was about 7 points higher than Ferro or SCR chargers. It is important to realize, however, that there are ranges for each metric that usually overlap. For instance, in terms of power factor, Ferro and high frequency units have ranges that closely align, even though the highest power factors were seen with high frequency chargers. This observation has important implications for how HF chargers are treated in DSM programs.
Past Research
• EPRI completed three large demonstration projects of fast charging in automobile assembly plants in 2002-2004. Results:
• Increased productivity and reduced labor costs
• Improved safety through fewer battery change-outs and reduced risk of vehicle collisions
• Parts and maintenance savings
• Battery and part protection, as batteries were less likely to go below 20% of charge capacity
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Other important research on industrial battery chargers was completed by EPRI in the early 2000s. Here, they focused on fast charging capability rather than the technology type of charger. They completed three large demonstration projects of fast charging in automobile assembly plants with the following results: Increased productivity and reduced labor costs from not having to change batteries between shifts or at the end of the day Improved safety through reduced risk of injury associated with battery change-outs, and reduced risk of vehicle collisions in battery changing areas Parts and maintenance savings generated by not having to purchase extra batteries and better part protection Battery and part protection, as batteries were less likely to go below 20% of charge capacity, which can damage batteries, brushes and connection points
METHODOLOGY
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Now I’m going to switch gears and talk about our study, beginning with the methodology.
• 9 sites/13 charging stations across MN, SD
• Field testing
• Pre-monitoring
• Install energy loggers
• Monitor existing FR or SCR charger(s) for 2 weeks
• Post-monitoring
• Install HF charger(s)
• Install energy loggers
• Monitor existing FR or SCR charger(s) for 2 weeks
• Measurement equipment
• Fluke 1730 energy logger or equivalent, 1/5 min intervals
• Douglas DataTrac battery monitoring device (1 site)
• Customer Interviews (Sites 8 and 9)
Methodology
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The focus of our study was field testing. We performed evaluations of high frequency battery chargers in 9 facilities across Minnesota and South Dakota, comprising a total of 13 charging stations. The field testing began with pre-monitoring, in which energy loggers were installed to monitor each facility’s existing Ferro or SCR chargers for a minimum of 2 weeks. For the post-monitoring phase, we installed high frequency chargers on a temporary basis, and similarly installed energy loggers to monitor the high frequency energy use for a minimum of 2 weeks. The measurement equipment consisted of a Fluke 1730 energy logger or equivalent, which logged the AC input power at 1 minute or 5 minute intervals depending on the specific logger type. For one site, we also used a Douglas DataTrac battery monitoring device in order to simultaneously measure DC output power. The photos to the right show one of the charging stations in the study. The top picture shows 2 existing SCR chargers, one of which was monitored during the pre-phase. The lower picture shows installation of the high frequency charger at the station, replacing one of the SCR chargers.
FINDINGS
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Now I’m going to describe our findings.
Findings
• Overview
• Finding good test sites was a challenge throughout
• Little traction from distributors
• Many potential sites did not meet screening criteria
• Most sites had no need for opportunity charging
• Two sites did not have complete pre- and post-data
• Testing limitations
• Could not replace all existing chargers with HF chargers
• Could not find solution for measuring charger output power w/o voiding warranty
• Could not control for differences in lift-truck usage between pre- and post-periods
• Opportunity charging may not have been enabled on all HF chargers
• Puzzling, inconsistent results
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This study had many challenges. One big one was finding good test sites. Originally, we looked to the 3 main industrial battery charger distributors in Minnesota for help in this area, but several months went by with little traction from this sector. Thereafter, we primarily relied on our subcontractor and utility friends for leads. Many leads that came to us had to be rejected because they did not meet our screening criteria in terms of operating shifts or lift-truck usage. The sites that we did accept for the most part had no need for opportunity charging, which made it difficult to evaluate non-energy benefits. Finally, at two sites we were not able to get a complete set of pre- and post- data; only one or the other was able to be collected. On top of the test site limitations, there were also limitations with our intended testing methodology that became apparent as the study progressed. For one, we generally had just 1 or 2 “loaner” high frequency chargers available to us. This meant that some existing chargers could still be used by operators during the post-period, which had the effect of confounding the energy comparisons. The site photos I showed previously are a good illustration of this problem, where only 1 of the 2 existing chargers was replaced by a high frequency unit. Second, although we intended to measure power conversion efficiency at every site, we struggled to find a solution for doing this without interfering with operators’ use of the chargers or installing instrumentation that could void the charger warranty. Aside from not being able to measure conversion efficiency, this mean that we could not control for differences in lift-truck usage between the pre- and post- periods. Finally, we learned near the end of the field testing that opportunity charging may not have been enabled by the distributor on all high frequency chargers that were tested, which mean that the peak demand effects may have been artificially limited by this setting. Overall, as I’ll show on the following slides, our testing yielded very puzzling, inconsistent results.
Findings
Site 1 2Charging Station 1 2 1 2 3
Old Charger Type FR FR FR FR FRNew Charger Type HF HF HF HF HF3-Phase AC Voltage 240V 240V 277/480V 277/480V 277/480VChanges Pre-PostAvg. Length of Charge(hrs) -1.00 +0.06 +3.29 -2.63 -1.90Peak Demand, kW +1.85 +0.65 +3.26 +3.14 +3.15Average Power Factor -0.03 -0.02 +0.06 -0.00 +0.01Average # Charges/Day -2.17 -0.30 +0.47 +0.14 +0.13Average kWh/Charge -4.74 +1.13 +20.61 +3.31 +3.52Average kWh/Day -35.12 +0.80 +27.19 +7.15 +6.89
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The following tables summarize the results at each site and charging station. The lower section of each table shows the change in key parameters across the pre- and post- periods, with the pre-period comprising the existing charger, and the post-period comprising the high frequency charger. I’ve shaded cells with a significant increase green, and cells with a significant decrease red. Because the pre- and post-monitoring durations were usually different, I normalized the energy usage by charging event, and day. Based on the PG&E results, one would expect there to be a consistent decrease in kilowatt-hours consumed per charge, and a consistent decrease in the kilowatt-hours per day. However, this was not the case – in fact, there was a major increase in these parameters at Site 2, Station 1! Peak demand increased at all 5 stations here. However, there is no consistent correlation to the average length of charge. One would expect there to be an inverse relationship between these parameters, but that was not the case at Site 2, Station 1.
Findings
Site 3 4 6 8 9Charging Station 1 1 1 1 1
Old Charger Type FR FR FR SCR FRNew Charger Type HF HF HF HF HF3-Phase AC Voltage 277/480V 277/480V 277/480V 277/480V 277/480VChanges Pre-PostAvg. Length of Charge(hrs) +2.49 -0.23 -1.90 +2.09 -1.01Peak Demand, kW -2.20 +4.73 -5.21 -8.30 +0.07Average Power Factor -0.00 -0.24 n/a -0.23 +0.24Average # Charges/Day -1.39 +2.89 -1.39 -0.29 -0.11Average kWh/Charge +6.05 -3.01 -15.52 -27.10 -16.01Average kWh/Day -19.08 +30.41 -44.89 -11.90 -10.14
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here are results for the remaining sites where we have both pre- and post-data. Here, most sites should a decrease in peak demand. Most sites also show a drop in kWh per charge and post day, though Sites 3 and 4 have exceptions. Also note that the power factor dropped significantly at Site 4 and Site 8. This is not at all expected based on the PG&E results.
Findings
• Monitoring results:
• kWh per charge did not consistently decrease with HF charger as expected
• kWh per day did not consistently decrease with HF charger as expected
• HF chargers did not consistently have a higher power factor
• Some Ferro chargers (Sites 1, 3, 4, 6) had very high (>0.90) power factors
• Very low power factors seen with HF chargers at Sites 4 and 8 (0.75, 0.62)
• HF chargers did not consistently produce higher peak demand
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall, these results are puzzling. kWh per charge did not consistently decrease with the high frequency chargers as expected, nor did kWh per day. Also, the high frequency chargers did not consistently have a higher power factor. Some of the existing Ferro chargers, namely at Sites 1, 3, 4, and 6, had very high power factors of 0.9 or higher. These results are not surprising in themselves, as the PG&E results showed overlapping ranges in this parameter for Ferro and high frequency units, as I described previously. What was surprising was the very low power factors measured for the high frequency chargers at Sites 4 and 8, only 0.75 and 0.62, respectively. Finally, the high frequency chargers did not consistently produce higher peak demand, as would be expected if there charging rate was higher.
Findings
• Power Conversion Efficiency
• Measured at Site 8 only by comparing battery monitoring data with AC input data
• Battery monitoring data is a time-stamped event summary; difficult to get a precise comparison with AC logger data; battery monitoring device calibration unknown
• Results show higher conversion efficiency for HF charger compared to SCR charger
As I mentioned previously, we were able to measure power conversion efficiency at only one site with the aid of a battery monitoring device. Unfortunately, this device did not have the capability to log discrete data measurements; rather an event summary could be exported with cumulative amp-hour measurements. Using the event summary’s time stamps, I was able to do a rough comparison to the AC data from the energy logger, the results of which are shown in this table. However, while these results do point to a higher conversion efficiency for the high frequency charger, the actual numbers are puzzling, namely the extremely low conversion efficiency measured for the SCR charger and the extremely high efficiency for the high frequency unit, over 100%, which is of course impossible. Calibration differences may be one cause.
Findings
• Customer Interviews
• Site Overview:
• Interview Results
• Operators did not switch to opportunity charging with the HF chargers: no productivity gains, operators indifferent to HF chargers
• Most important factors when considering new charger purchase:
• Reliability #1 for both facilities
• Charging speed important for #2, for productivity as well as battery health
• Both interested in energy savings
Site 8 Site 9
Business Type Commercial printingMedical device manufacturer
No./Type of Chargers 2 SCR 35 FRNo. of Battery-Powered Lift-trucks 2 30
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Customer interviews were completed at Site 8 and Site 9. As the table indicates, Site 8 was a mid-sized commercial printing facility with only 2 SCR chargers and 2 lift-trucks. Site 9 was a large medical device manufacturer, with 35 Ferro chargers and 30 lift-trucks. Neither site switched to opportunity charging during the testing, so the facility managers could not speak to any productivity gains with the high frequency chargers. The operators were indifferent to the high frequency chargers, because just like their existing chargers, they would simply plug in their lift-truck and walk away. In terms of important factors when considering a new battery charger purchase, some insight was gleaned. Both sites indicated that reliability was their number one concern. Site 8 had no need for a faster charging rate given their relatively light lift-truck usage. Site 9 had heavy lift-truck usage and was interested in charging speed, for productivity as well as battery health (not going below 20% charge). Both sites were interested in energy savings in terms of the financial benefits.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Now I would like to offer some concluding remarks and recommendations for inclusion of high frequency chargers in CIP.
• Difficult to assess energy and peak demand impacts due to site, testing limitations
• Power factor is one parameter where results are reliable: no clear advantage for HF chargers
• The value proposition for HF chargers is different for each facility
• Many facilities have relatively light lift-truck usage: long paybacks from upgrading chargers and no need for opportunity charging
• Premise that HF chargers enable opportunity charging may be flawed
• We found several examples of Ferro and SCR chargers on-line that are advertised as having fast charging or opportunity charging capability
Conclusions
Presenter
Presentation Notes
From our results alone, it is difficult to assess the energy and peak demand impacts of high frequency chargers, due to the site and testing limitations in this study. Power factor is one area where are results are more reliable, however, and in our limited sample, no clear advantage was seen for the high frequency chargers. The very low factors seen at two of the sites are cause for concern and suggest that potential buyers should verify this parameter before committing to a purchase. The results for Sites 8 and 9 demonstrate that the value proposition for high frequency chargers varies greatly. Sites with light lift-truck usage would likely see long paybacks from upgrading to high frequency chargers, and would probably have little need for opportunity charging. At the other end of the spectrum, sites like 9, with heavy lift-truck usage could see a very good return from investing in high frequency chargers, both from an energy saving perspective as well as opportunity charging perspective. However, as I mentioned previously, the premise that high frequency chargers alone enable opportunity charging may be flawed. During the course of this research, we found examples of Ferro and SCR chargers that are promoted as having fast charging or opportunity charging capability. No matter what technology is selected, customers that are interested in opportunity charging should be aware of possible impacts on their peak demand that could offset energy saving benefits, depending on their rate structure.
• Insufficient evidence to recommend utilities discontinue custom incentives for HF chargers
• Requires careful analysis of existing and proposed charger performance, as well as operational patterns
• If prescriptive incentives are desired, set qualification standards for proposed equipment based on energy efficiency metrics, rather than technology
• Energy efficiency parameters should be rated according to California test procedures
Recommendations
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Going forward, we would offer the following recommendations based on this study. First, the limitations of the field testing make it difficult to draw conclusions on the actual performance of high frequency chargers compared to older technologies. Most utilities incentivize high frequency chargers through their custom rebate programs. That is an appropriate practice going forward. Custom incentives for high frequency chargers should be based on a careful analysis of the existing chargers and proposed charger performance, as well as the operational patterns of the facility such as average charges per day. Second, if prescriptive incentives are desired, qualification standards for the proposed equipment should be based on energy efficiency metrics such as power conversion efficiency and charge return factor, rather than technology alone. All energy efficiency parameters should ideally be rated according to the test procedures defined by the California Energy Commission.
Send us your questions usingGoToWebinar question box
Questions?
32
Presenter
Presentation Notes
And with that, I will conclude this presentation and take any questions you may have. ------------------------------ Thanks, Joe, for that great presentation. If you have not already done so, type your questions into the question box in the GoToWebinar panel and send them to us. Now, I’m going to turn it over to Mark who has been monitoring your questions as they’ve come in. Mark, do you have any questions for Joe?
CARD Project Resources
CARD Web Page (https://mn.gov/commerce/industries/energy/utilities/cip/applied-research-development/)
For Reports use CARD Search Quick Link
For Webinars use CARD Webinars & Videos Quick Link
Webinar Recording &Final Report
available in few weeks
33
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recording of this webinar as well as the final report should be available in a few weeks. We will send out an email to webinar attendees to let you know when they are available. When available, you can link to them from either the Webinar quick link or the CARD Search quick link located on the Applied Research and Development (R&D) web page as shown here. The R&D web page has additional resources and information related to the CARD program and to CARD research projects which you can check out. The web address is at the bottom of this slide.
Thanks for Participating!Upcoming CARD Webinars:• Oct 5: Assessment of cold climate air source heat pumps• Dec 7: Ongoing commissioning in out-patient medical clinics• Dec 14: Evaluation of moisture & heat transfer furnace retrofit
Commerce Division of Energy Resources e-mail list sign-up
If you have questions or feedback on the CARD program contact:Mary Sue Lobenstein
Thanks for participating today! We appreciate your interest in the results of CARD projects. Before we leave, I want to take this opportunity to mention three upcoming CARD webinars: On October 5 – the Center for Energy and Environment will present the results of their assessment of cold climate air source heat pumps in single family homes On December 7 – Michaels Energy will discuss their project which tested two ongoing commissioning approaches to improve the energy efficiency of out-patient medical clinics in Minnesota. On December 14 – the Center for Energy and Environment will conduct a webinar on their field study to determine the increased efficiency resulting from the installation of an innovative moisture and heat transfer retrofit device on residential furnaces. Announcements about upcoming webinars and other news related to the Minnesota utility Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) can be found in the CIP Newsletter. To sign up for the Newsletter or to receive email news on a range of other energy topics, use the link on this slide to go to the email sign up page of the Department’s website. In the meantime, please contact me if you want more information on how to sign up for these upcoming webinars or if you have questions or feedback on the CARD program. Also let me know of any suggestions for improving these CARD webinars to make them more relevant to you. Thanks, again!
