Home

Publication

9th December 1999, The Straits Times

$175 million - That’s the annual energy bill for offices

Air-conditioning is the biggest energy guzzler; by making adjustments, some buildings can even halve their total bill

OFFICES use about $175 million worth of electricity a year just for air-conditioning, lights, lifts, computers and other gadgets. 

Fully 10 per cent of that energy bill – that is, a cool $17.5 million – could be saved with little effort. 

And with a retrofit, some buildings could save as much as 50 per cent.

Air-conditioning is the biggest energy-guzzler. So if these buildings upgrade their air-conditioning systems and use energy efficient lighting, together with making other adjustments, they could cut their power bills in half.

The power bill for the 5.8 million sq m of office space was worked out from the findings of a survey of electricity consumption in 105 office buildings in the public and private sectors.

The National University of Singapore’s School of Building and Real Estate carried out the survey.

It found that the mean power consumption was 224 kWh per sq m of gross floor area. That is about $30 a year for every square metre of space.

The most efficient building spent just $13 for the same space; the least efficient burned up $73 per sq m.

The buildings were not named. As the information was provided for the survey on condition it was kept confidential.

Associate Professor Lee Siew Eang, the school’s vice-dean, said the study found Singapore “less efficient than Hongkong and Japan”.

There, they have better norms and building codes to ensure that buildings are better designed to be energy efficient, he said.

There was a big efficiency gap between the best and the worst.

The difference was more marked among smaller buildings than among the larger ones, he said.

The NUS team that studied the buildings hopes to develop a yardstick to allow building owners and managers to benchmark their own building’s energy efficiency against others.

“When this information is available on the Internet, a building owner can answer a questionnaire on energy use in his own building and find out where he stands against others in the same industry,” he said.

When the buildings were grouped by trade, it was found that buildings occupied by finance, banking and insurance-related services used $18.65 of electricity per sq m a year, higher than the trade and marketing businesses, which used $16.04.

The lowest average use of $13.35 was for those housing professional services like those by lawyers and accountants.

Consumption patterns reflected the differences in operating hours, the number of computers and other office equipment used.

Regardless of trade, he pointed out, one thing remained constant – each kilowatt hour of electricity consumed releases 0.58 kg of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and its negative effects.

But all is not lost.

No expensive new technology is needed to cut such emissions.

In one of the best documented cases, the RELC building in Orange Grove Road cut its power bill by 56 per cent after it installed a new air-conditioning system.

Apart from poor maintenance of air-conditioning equipment, a rise in energy consumption can be traced right back to the design and construction stage.

This is a problem even in very new buildings.

Said Prof Lee: “Architects and builders have to get back to the basics of good design principles and consider issues like ventilation and orientation and not just focus on putting up an aesthetically-pleasing façade.”

Honeywell, which sells building-management systems, knows this well.

Its director of marketing and building products, Mr Lui Wing Sin, said that with few exceptions, the building industry has been slow to adopt a more environmentally-responsible approach.

“It’s a simple question of economics,” he said.

He explained: “Building owners are looking for quick paybacks on their investments and they perceive environmentally-friendly solutions to be expensive.

“They should look beyond initial costs when looking for a total building solution.

“Long-term recurring costs, such as energy wastage, maintenance and other operating costs, should not be overlooked.”

LOWER COSTS:
With cleaner air-cons

HAVING a well-maintained air-conditioning system will not only save building owners money, but will also keep the occupants comfortable and healthy.

Mr Lui Wing Sin, director of marketing and building products at Honeywell, said it has been shown that dirty coils in cooling equipment can result in a 10 to 15 per cent increase in energy costs.

If the equipment is not well-maintained, it can affect the indoor-air quality and lead to “sick-building syndrome”. This means higher absenteeism and medical costs.

Air-conditioning systems take up about 55 per cent of a building’s energy usage. Although they are the biggest energy wasters, they also have the largest potential for savings.

Clean cooling coils mean that the air-handling units can accept chilled water at a higher temperature.

This will lower energy bills, since less energy is used to chill the water.

In a recent Honeywell project in a government building, maintaining the chilled-water temperature at 2 deg C higher than usual resulted in energy savings of 7 per cent, noted Mr Lui.

By replacing old filters with electronic air-cleaners and making other adjustments, he said, its energy use was cut by $132,000 a year.

BUILDING, MANUFACTURING, TRANSPORTATION

Committee to focus on energy efficiency

A MULTI-AGENCY committee has been at work in Singapore since 1997 to promote energy efficiency in the building, manufacturing and transportation sectors.

The committee is considering developing a coordinated national strategy on energy conservation, benchmarking and setting energy efficiency targets, among other things.

It is not clear when its report will be ready.

Meanwhile, power companies across the Causeway have been contributing 1 per cent of their revenue into a government-run fund since 1997 to support energy efficiency projects. 

The fund will provide about one-third of the RM79 million (S$32.9 million) needed for a four-year energy efficiency improvement programme for industry. The programme was launched in August this year.

Singapore lags even further behind developed countries in terms of energy efficiency.

Local energy-efficiency expert Lee Eng Lock, technical director of Supersymmetry Services, said in the US, it was mandated nine years ago that federal government buildings had to cut energy use by 30 per cent. “And it has been so successful that the target has been raised to 35 per cent this year,” he said.

“This has spurred the private sector to compete to provide the solutions. Why are we not doing the same here?”

Associate Professor Lee Siew Eang, vice-dean of the National University of Singapore’s School of Building and Real Estate, noted that public-sector initiatives in Singapore have largely tended to encourage efficiency through incentives.

However, this approach coupled with the relatively low energy costs here, has made it difficult for energy services companies to emerge. ‘This may result in less innovative approaches in energy conservation in the industry.”

Back to Main Publication Page

Designed By Cyber-IB.com Pte Ltd, Singapore. All rights reserved.