CEC Plug-Load Project Results · 2019. 8. 22. · CEC Plug Load Results Thank You to the Plug Load...

CEC Plug Load Results

CEC Plug-Load Project Results

California Energy CommissionGavin Newsom, Governor

TAC Technical Advisory CommitteeUpdate meetingAugust 22, 2019

Presentation by:

Mark Finck & Edward Ruan

https://fishnick.com/cecplug/


Thank You to the Plug Load Project Sponsors

TAC MembersBrad Meister California Energy Commission

Melisa Marks, CFSP Southern California Gas Company

Raveena Wisham San Diego Gas & Electric

Andre Saldivar, CEM, CFSP, CMVP Southern California Edison

Charlie Souhrada, CFSPNorth American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM)

Brian Ward Target Market & Media Services

Jeffrey Clark National Restaurant Association (NRA)

Juliann Rogers CKE Restaurants, Inc.

Rob Carr McDonald's Corporation

Don Fisher Fisher‐Consultants, LLC

Judy Nickel Fisher‐Consultants, LLC

Beth Lorenzini FER Magazine

Mary McEnroe Silicon Valley Power


CEC Plug Load ProjectWeb Page

http://www.fishnick.com/cecplug/


Plug-Load Project Team:

Frontier Energy ○David Zabrowski ‐ Project Manager

○Mark Finck ‐ Principal Investigator

○Edward Ruan – Site and Field – Appliance / Data Analysis○Denis Livchak – Data Analysis and Reporting

Fisher Consultants ○Don Fisher – Technical Support

Opinion Dynamics – Customer Survey

ADM Associates, Inc. ‐ Measurement and Verification

Appliance Plug Loads can be substantial ‐ there are approximately 100,000 commercial food service (CFS) facilities operating in California and over 1 million facilities nationwide.

Potential For Big Savings From Small Loads?


Project Objectives

• Research and determine Plug Load appliance categories

• Identify top energy using appliances with greatest potential to implement a reducedenergy mode during periods of minimal activity

• Field monitoring at least 5 target sites

• Demonstrate potential to reduce appliance’s energy consumption without hindering overall kitchen production

• Study operational behavior changes

• Create a database of appliance energy info

Previous Meeting (April 2018)

• Discussed project goals and methodology

• Reviewed energy data from 14 commercial sites

• Identified/reviewed 13 baseline equipment categories and went over the replacements for 4 of those categories

• Reviewed client surveys and market assessment/potential


Project Status: Nearly Complete

• 29 Commercial Foodservice Facilities Monitored

Site / Locations• Restaurants:

– Full Service (Independent):• Bridges Restaurant, Danville

• SideBoard, Danville

• SideBoard, Lafayette

• Lin Jia Asian Kitchen, Oakland

• Mission City Grill, Santa Clara

• Blurr Kitchen, Santa Clara

• Lisa V, Concord

• SaltCraft, Pleasanton

• Corporate Dining:– San Ramon Valley Conference Center, San Ramon

– Tech Company, Santa Clara

• Education: – Mills College Founders Commons, Oakland

– UC Berkeley Crossroads Dining Hall, Berkeley

– Quick Service (Multiunit)• Togo’s Sandwich, multiple• Chipotle, San Ramon• Jack in the Box, South Bay• Café Bakery, San Ramon

• Hospitality: – DoubleTree Hotel, Pleasanton

– Plaza Suites, Silicon Valley

• Other:– Food Service Technology Center, San Ramon

– Quick Service (Independent):• Rebecca’s Café, San Ramon• Caffe 817, Oakland• Kettle’e, Santa Clara• Chromatic Coffee, Santa Clara• Voyager Craft Coffee, Santa Clara• Café Gabriela, Oakland• Dabba, San Francisco• Spreadz Sandwiches, Santa Clara



• 91 Baseline Appliances Monitored


37 Efficient Appliances Monitored

19 New Efficient Tech18 Direct Replacement



• Energy Use Averaged and Normalized for 22 Appliance Types

Equipment Overview


Equipment Overview

Equipment Overview


Hotplates

Number Monitored

Total Average Daily Energy

Usage (kWh/day)

Normalized Input Rate

(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)

Direct Replacement Savings (%)

Average Annual Savings ($/unit)

Baseline 1 18.2 2.1765.2 29.0 286

Efficient 4 3.8 0.76

@ $0.15/kwh


Induction Hotplates

Caffe 817: baseline electric hotplate to induction hotplate

– Energy use was reduced by 59%

– Estimated annual energy savings of about $600

Baseline Induction

Average Daily Energy Use

18.2 kWh 7.4 kWh

Annual Energy Cost

$1000 $400

@ $0.15/kwh

Caffe 817 Induction Hotplate Energy Profile

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Baseline Replacement

@ $0.15/kwh


SaltCraft 2‐Hob Induction Hotplate

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

@ $0.15/kwh

Lab Testing

Voltage 120V 120V 208V 208V 208VMake Vollrath Cooktek Vollrath Cooktek GarlandModel 59500P MC1800 912HIDC MC3506G InstinctPower Per HOB 1.8kW 1.8kW 2.5 kW 3.5 kW 5 kWBoil Efficiency (%) 82.9 82.0 87.8 90.3 90.420lb Boil Time* (min) 33.6 35.42 22.2 19.3 10.5

Cooking energy efficiency test results were performed in accordance with ASTM F1521.• Time to heat 20lbs of water from 70 to 200 deg F. • Efficiency determined by the energy to the pot and water over

the total energy to the appliance.

DZ4

Slide 24

DZ4 mention future testing of the Conduction unit. Add a picture form the MFR site.David Zabrowski, 8/22/2019


Conveyor Toasters

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 10 19.6 2.0820.8 21.0 223


@ $0.15/kwh

Bakery/Café: Replacement

208V, Decrease from 3kW to 2kW

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2/23/17 12:00 AM 2/23/17 3:00 AM 2/23/17 6:00 AM 2/23/17 9:00 AM 2/23/17 12:00 PM 2/23/17 3:00 PM 2/23/17 6:00 PM 2/23/17 9:00 PM 2/24/17 12:00 AM

Power (kW)

@ $0.15/kwh


Bakery/Café Energy Comparison

Installation

Mills College: Replacement

Input Rate Modulation

@ $0.15/kwh


Voyager Craft Coffee: Replacement


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)


@ $0.15/kwh

Spreadz – Before, After, and Modified


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)


@ $0.15/kwh


Spreadz – Before, After, and Modified


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Baseline Replacement (changed)

@ $0.15/kwh

Panini Presses

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 7 7.7 1.0744.5 N/A 185*


@ $0.15/kwh


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

UC Berkeley

@ $0.15/kwh

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Togo’s Sandwich

@ $0.15/kwh


Tech Company

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)@ $0.15/kwh

High Speed Microwave Panini Press

Lab Testing


Lab TestingInput Rate Electrolux Nemco Turbochef

Electrolux 603874

Speedelight

(8.1” x 8.5”)

5 kW (0.8 kW top 2x1 kW

magnetrons)

Nemco 6900 Panini Pro

(10.5” x 10.5”)

4 kW (2 kW resistance, 2

kW magnetron)

Turbochef Panini (i1)

(9.8” x 15.2”)

6.2 kW (6 kW

resistance, 3.2 kW

magnetron)

Idle and Cooking Electrolux Nemco Turbochef

0.5 kW Idle,

2.13 kW cook @

62.6 items/h

1.1 kW Idle,

1.88 kW cook @

47.0 items/h

0.9 kW Idle,

4.30 kW cook @

62.6 items/h

Rapid Cook Ovens

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A


@ $0.15/kwh


Three Types of Rapid Cook Ovens

High Temperature Microwave Ovens

Door Type Hot Air Impingement Ovens

Conveyor Hot Air Impingement Ovens

Togos• Savings possible when replacing multiple pieces

• Replaced panini press and one steam table well

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Test Time (h) @ $0.15/kwh


Chromatic Coffee

• The rapid cook oven consumed an average of 21.3 kWh per day while being on 13.1 hours per day.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (kW)

Test Time (h)

@ $0.15/kwh

Lab Testing – Rapid Cook Idle Rates

Idle Rate (kW) Amana MerryChef TurbochefSmall ARX1: NA

ARX2: NA

e2: 0.68 kW @ 427°F

setback from 500°F

e2s 0.67 kW @ 438°F

setback from 500°F

Eco: 0.75 kW @ 472 °F

Sota: 0.82 kW @ 500°F

Medium ACE 14: NA

ACE 19: 1.33 kW @

490°F

e3 NA

e3s NA

Encore: 1.2 kW @ 520°F

Large AXP‐22T: 1.33 kW @

501°F

e4: 1.11 kW @ 500°F

e4s: 0.72 kW @ ~400°F

setback from 500°F

I3: 1.78 kW @ 500°F

Extra Large NA e6: 0.99 kW @ 499°F I5: NA

0.6 – 1.8 kW Idle Rate


Lab Testing – Pizza Cook ResultsCooking Input Rate

(kW) and Production

Capacity (lb/h)

Amana MerryChef Turbochef

Small ARX1: NA

ARX2: NA

e2 3.33 kW @ 37.8 lb/h

e2s 4.95 kW @ 52.1

lb/h

Eco: 2.63 kW @ 16.7

lb/h

Sota 3.62 kW @ 28.4

lb/hMedium ACE 14: NA

ACE 19: NA

e3 NA

e3s NA

Encore: 4.84 kW @ 49.7

lb/hLarge AXP‐22T: 4.77 kW @

54.5 lb/h

e4: 5.41 kW @ 54.5 lb/h

e4s: 5.18 kW @ 56.1

lb/h

I3: 5.76 kW @ 56.0 lb/h

Extra Large NA e6: 5.03 kW @ 48.6 lb/h I5: NA

2.6 – 5.8 kW Cooking Rate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Sandwich Wings Veggies TC Pizza ASTM Pizza

Energy Consumption (wh/lb food)

Food Energy Intensity

batch conveyor deck


Rice Cookers

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 7 1.7 0.61N/A N/A N/A

Efficient N/A N/A N/A

@ $0.15/kwh

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Lin Jia Asian Kitchen

@ $0.15/kwh


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Lin Jia Asian Kitchen

@ $0.15/kwh


Holding Cabinets

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 9 8.1 1.1563.7 58.5 258


@ $0.15/kwh

Plaza Suites

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time (h)

Replacement Baseline

Compartmentalizing to one heated holding, one passive holding

@ $0.15/kwh


Blurr Kitchen

• Better insulation = less cycling required to maintain temperature

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Test Time (h)


@ $0.15/kwh

Tech Company

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Test Time (h)

Baseline Replacement ‐ Top Replacement ‐ Bottom

@ $0.15/kwh


Cook and Holds

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 1 5.0 0.944 ‐6.5 ‐17

Efficient(?) 1 5.7 1.00

@ $0.15/kwh

Tech Company – Baseline and Replacement

• Lower input rate but higher modulation

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)



Soup Wells

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 7 0.8 0.1632.9 49.1 21


@ $0.15/kwh

Standard Countertop Soup Warmer vs Induction Lab Testing Data

Wet Well holding rate: 339 W Induction holding rate: 105 W

69% Energy Reduction!


Direct Replacement Savings• Café test site: replacement of baseline soup warmer with induction = 52% energy savings

• Client pleased with performance and noted ease of use

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Baseline Induction

Baseline Induction


0.90 kWh 0.44 kWh

Annual Energy Cost

$49.00 $23.96

@ $0.15/kwh

Direct Replacement Savings• College campus test site: replacement of baseline soup warmer with induction = 63%

energy savings

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Baseline

Baseline Induction


1.45 kWh 0.54 kWh

Annual Energy Cost

$78.95 $29.40

@ $0.15/kwh


Heated Wells

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 8 5.1 0.7233.8 N/A 94*


@ $0.15/kwh

Wet Well at Togo’s Sandwich

• One of two 12” x 20” Warmers used every day

@ $0.15/kwh

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)


Wet Well – Soup Station at Bakery/Café

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2 AM 5 AM 7 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 5 PM 7 PM 10 PM

Power (kW)

@ $0.15/kwhTotal for all 8 wells

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Induction Well at Claremont Hotel

@ $0.15/kwh


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Induction Well at Claremont Hotel

@ $0.15/kwh

Additional energy cost from heat strip

Dry Well: Potential Savings based on Lab TestingDry Well Steam Well

Total Product Volume (gal) 14 12

Preheat Energy (Wh/day) 570 4,156

Holding Energy (Wh/day) 13,125 25,350

Annual Energy Consumption

(kWh/yr)4,999 10,767

Annual Operating Energy Cost ($/yr) $740 $1,615

@ $0.15/kwh


Heat Strips

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 2 13.5 0.84

81.4 N/A 594*


@ $0.15/kwh

Cal Rod vs Ceramic vs Halogen


Mills College (Café)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2


Power (kW)

@ $0.15/kwh

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Power (kW)

Doubletree Hotel4ft Heat Strip

ON 24 hrs / 7 days/weekNO indication of power ON (lamp) No power switch at unit.

@ $0.15/kwh


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Tech Company Halogen

@ $0.15/kwh

• Adjustable heat setting allowed staff to set at low input rate

Replacement Options

• Behavioral changes can make a dramatic difference

• Heat strips with optical sensors

• Halogen replacements and training

Testing a Prototype


Coffee Brewers

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 7 9.1 0.7175.0 55.3 163


@ $0.15/kwh


Mills College Low Volume (Café)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


Power (kW)

@ $0.15/kwh

Bakery/Café High Volume

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Power (kW)

@ $0.15/kwh


FSTC: Replacement

Same model, controlled with on/off timer

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)


@ $0.15/kwh

Replacement at Rebecca’s

Activating Setback Mode

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)


@ $0.15/kwh


Baseline vs Replacement

• Overnight idle energy is a substantial portion of total energy use

• Energy savings modes without timers will have delay upon startup

• Controls work best with behavior‐change based training

Espresso Machines

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 6 13.1 0.9853.9 65.5 467

Efficient 2 4.5 0.45@ $0.15/kwh



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


Power (kW)

@ $0.15/kwh

Espresso Machine Challenge – Always ON

production

idle idle


Espresso Machine Controlled with Internal TimerCut Energy Cost by 33%

@ $0.15/kwh

Café Gabriela

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Test Time (h)


@ $0.15/kwh


Tea Brewers

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Baseline 3 1.9 0.14N/A N/A N/A

Efficient N/A N/A N/A

@ $0.15/kwh

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)


@ $0.15/kwh


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Togo’s Sandwich

@ $0.15/kwh

Other Appliances Explored

Appliance Type

Baseline

Number Monitored

Total Average Daily Energy Usage (kWh/day)

Normalized Input Rate (kW)

Countertop Oven 1 4.8 0.43

Heat Lamp 1 1.4 0.24

Heated Shelf 5 2.8 0.43

Microwave 2 3.6 0.86

Popup Toaster 1 0.6 0.50

Soda Dispenser 1 1.0 0.09

Tortilla Warmer 4 6.3 0.67

Waffle Iron 2 8.7 0.90


Same Appliance, Different Restaurant

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Input Rate (W

)

Time of Day (h)

Waffle Iron Energy Profile Comparison

Plaza Suites Mission City Grill

Project Findings

Project Findings• Highest average baseline energy use from

1. Conveyor Toasters2. Hotplates3. Heat Strips4. Espresso Machines

• Greatest savings (%) were found in 1. Espresso Machines2. Holding Cabinets3. Soup Wells4. Coffee Brewers5. Hotplates6. Conveyor Toasters

• Greatest savings($) were found in 1. Espresso Machines2. Hotplates3. Conveyor Toasters4. Holding Cabinets

Appliance Type

Baseline

Total Average

Daily Energy Usage

(kWh/day)


(kW)

Average Energy Usage Level

Average Input Rate

Average Proportion of Operating Time Spent

Idling

Energy Savings

Opportunity

Coffee Brewer 10.1 0.65 High Medium Very High High

Conveyor Toaster 22.4 2.22 Very High Very High Medium High

Espresso Machine 8.1 0.65 High Medium Very High High

Heat Strip 13.5 0.80 High Medium High High

Heated Shelf 4.2 0.31 Medium Low Low Low

Holding Cabinet 10.3 1.17 High High Low Medium

Hotplate 18.2 2.17 Very High Very High Low High

Panini Press 2.5 1.31 Low High Medium Medium

Rice Cooker 1.7 0.72 Low Medium Low LowSoup Well 1.0 0.23 Low Low Low LowTea Brewer 1.8 0.12 Low Low Very High MediumTortilla Warmer 5.8 0.62 Medium Medium Medium Medium

Wet Well 3.3 0.49 Medium Medium Low Medium


Appliance Type

Baseline Efficient

Average Percent

Difference (%)



Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Number Monitored


Usage (kWh/day)


(kW)

Coffee Brewer 7 9.1 0.71 2 1.0 0.18 75.0 33.2 163

Conveyor Toaster 10 19.6 2.08 6 14.0 1.59 20.8 21.0 223

Cook and Hold 1 5.0 0.94 1 5.7 1.00 ‐6.5 ‐6.4 ‐17

Espresso Machine 6 13.1 0.98 2 4.5 0.45 53.9 65.5 467

Heat Strip 2 13.5 0.84 1 0.9 0.16 81.4 N/A 594*

Heated Well 8 5.1 0.72 1 5.2 0.48 33.8 N/A 94*

Holding Cabinet 9 8.1 1.15 3 2.9 0.42 63.7 58.5 258

Hotplate 1 18.2 2.17 4 3.8 0.76 65.2 29.0 286

Panini Press 7 7.7 1.07 4 6.2 0.59 44.5 N/A 185*

Rapid Cook Oven N/A N/A N/A 5 20.3 1.44 N/A N/A N/A

Soup Well 7 0.8 0.16 9 0.6 0.11 32.9 49.1 21

Strongest Plug Load Opportunities

• Conveyor Toasters– Consistently among most energy‐intensive plug loads, savings vary substantially depending on idle time

• Hotplates– High energy traditional units can be replaced with induction

• Espresso Machines– Operating energy not substantially higher than idle energy

– Stigma against shutting machines off

• Holding Cabinets – Most consistent and high‐level savings, basics of insulation


Other Notable Appliance Categories

• Rapid Cook Ovens

– High energy but versatile, possibilities for menu expansion and kitchen consolidation

• Heat Strips

– Strong savings potential due to constant use and operator neglect

• Soup Wells

– Great percent savings, but the energy dollar savings per unit is low

Project Conclusions

• Basics such as insulation are key

• Espresso machine savings are substantial, need to remove stigma

• Induction technologies can realistically halve energy costs

• Low use equipment has highest savings potential

• Savings opportunities everywhere


Barriers to Adoption

• Cost

• Staff Behavior Changes

• Education

Tech Transfer

• 61 Presentations

• 6 Publications

• Poster Session

DZ3

Slide 94

DZ3 We should at least mention the names of the partner associations/events that we leveraged for TTDavid Zabrowski, 8/22/2019


Next Steps

• Dispel myth of appliance shutoff reducing espresso machine lifespan

• Investigate heat strip savings via timer or halogen models

• Identify situations where rapid cook ovens can save energy

Appliance Type Baseline Units Monitored Efficient Units Monitored

Coffee Brewer 7 2

Conveyor Toaster 10 6

Cook and Hold 1 1

Countertop Oven 1

Espresso Machine 6 2

Heat Lamp 1

Heat Strip 2 1

Heated Shelf 5

Heated Well 8 1

Holding Cabinet 9 3

Hotplate 1 4

Microwave 2

Panini Press 7 4

Popup Toaster 1

Rapid Cook Oven 5

Rice Cooker 7

Soda Dispenser 1

Soup Well 7 9

Tea Brewer 3

Tortilla Warmer 4

Waffle Iron 2


Appliance Type

Baseline EfficientAverage Percent Difference (%)



Number Monitored



(kW)

Number Monitored



(kW)

Coffee Brewer 7 9.1 0.71 2 1.0 0.18 75.0 33.2 163

Conveyor Toaster 10 19.6 2.08 6 14.0 1.59 20.8 21.0 223

Cook and Hold 1 5.0 0.94 1 5.7 1.00 ‐6.5 ‐6.4 ‐17

Countertop Oven 1 4.8 0.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Espresso Machine 6 13.1 0.98 2 4.5 0.45 53.9 65.5 467

Heat Lamp 1 1.4 0.24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Heat Strip 2 13.5 0.84 1 0.9 0.16 81.4 N/A 594*

Heated Shelf 5 2.8 0.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Heated Well 8 5.1 0.72 1 5.2 0.48 33.8 N/A 94*

Holding Cabinet 9 8.1 1.15 3 2.9 0.42 63.7 58.5 258

Hotplate 1 18.2 2.17 4 3.8 0.76 65.2 29.0 286

Microwave 2 3.6 0.86 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Panini Press 7 7.7 1.07 4 6.2 0.59 44.5 N/A 185*

Popup Toaster 1 0.6 0.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Rapid Cook Oven N/A N/A N/A 5 20.3 1.44 N/A N/A N/A

Rice Cooker 7 1.7 0.61 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Soda Dispenser 1 1.0 0.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Soup Well 7 0.8 0.16 9 0.6 0.11 32.9 49.1 21

Tea Brewer 3 1.9 0.14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tortilla Warmer 4 6.3 0.67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Waffle Iron 2 8.7 0.90 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Research and identify appliances

Date post:	26-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CEC Plug-Load Project Results · 2019. 8. 22. · CEC Plug Load Results Thank You to the Plug Load...

Documents