boston college vending machine energy audit project report

Boston College Vending Machine Energy Audit Project Report

GE580 Environmental Seminar

Professor Tara Gareau-Pisani May 1st, 2014

Lindsey Hoyem

Nathan Lawlor

Taylor McEldowney Laura Schaffer

1

Introduction The presence of vending machines on Boston College’s campuses provides students,

staff, and visitors to the university with the ability to purchase a variety of beverage and snack

options at many convenient locations around its campuses. Boston College (BC) has vending

machine contracts with two vendors to supply these products. The Coca-Cola Company is

contracted to provide soft drinks, energy drinks (Powerade), and water (Dasani) while Next

Generation Vending and Food Services, Inc (Next Generation) is contracted to provide a variety

of snack options. The 146 vending machines that are currently in operation at BC are located

across Main Campus, Brighton Campus, and Newton Campus. Of these 146 machines, 101 are

beverage machines provided by Coca-Cola and 45 are snack machines provided by Next

Generation (see Appendix A).

Vending machines have been used for many centuries to provide a convenient way to buy

and sell goods. Portable coin-operated vending machines were first used in England in the 17th

century to dispense tobacco, newspapers, and stamps. Towards the end of the 19th century,

vending machines were built in the United States to sell gum and candy products (Segrave,

2002). Today, vending machines have become commonplace at many institutions in America,

with many consumers taking their presence for granted. Major vendors have sought contracts

with universities because of the high concentration of consumers on their campuses and the high

demand for quick and convenient food and beverage options.

Having vending machines on campus offers many benefits to the BC community. Drink

and snack vending machines are located in most lounges, dining halls, academic buildings, and

libraries on its campuses. The prevalence of these machines allows consumers to have access to

food and drink options at all hours of the day. As 19 of 29 residence halls on campus have no

kitchen access the availability of vending machines provides an essential service for those

students on the university meal plan who want food choices outside of dining hall hours

(“Residence Hall Association”, 2014).

Though the presence of vending machines provides a valuable service to the BC

community, their use also contributes significantly to the total annual energy usage of the

university. We calculated that BC’s average annual energy cost for all operational vending

machines is $15,529.52 (see Appendix C). In addition to raising annual energy costs for BC, this

high energy use negatively contributes to BC’s carbon footprint and the university’s efforts to

2

increase sustainability. We calculated that the use of vending machines at BC contributes 119.41

tons of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere per year (see Appendix C).

This substantial energy use and CO2 emissions at BC stems from the fact that vending

machines are extremely energy intensive appliances that often utilize power constantly

throughout the day. Though the vending machines are the property of the vendors (The Coca-

Cola Company or Next Generation), and are provided by each vendor at no cost to the university,

BC is responsible for paying the utility bill generated by their electrical use (Karamourtopoulos,

2014). All vending machines across campus are required to be on at all times to provide

continuous access to their products for the university community and to keep the card readers

installed on the machines working properly. If any vending machine is powered down the card

reader may lose an internet connection which will require manual labor to restore the

functionality of the reader. The amount of energy used by a particular vending machine varies by

a number of factors including the model, lighting and refrigeration settings, card reader usage,

insulation quality, and other internal mechanisms. Vending machines at BC are not standardized.

Across all of BC’s campuses, there are 12 different vending machine models in use, of which 3

are ENERGY STARTM (energy star) certified (see Appendix D: Table 1). These 3 models

constitute 48% of vending machines on campus (see Appendix D: Figure 1). In addition, vending

machines of the same model may vary by the type of lighting they use or through retrofitted

devices. In order to reduce the energy use of vending machines at BC there are multiple methods

that the energy management team and the vendors can employ. For this project, our team has

focused on the most feasible and cost-effective changes that BC can make to reduce vending

machine energy usage.

To conduct our study we used a variety of methods to evaluate energy efficiency

alternatives that could be incorporated at BC. As a general overview, this entailed conducting

external research on existing alternatives, collecting data through testing machines, having

conversations with vendor representatives, field documentation, and data analysis including

evaluating the cost-benefits of each energy efficiency alternative.

3

Project Proposal and Rationale Through this energy audit and research study, our team sought to examine the energy

intensiveness of the existing vending machines on BC’s campuses and evaluate all possible

methods to decrease their energy use and cost to the university. We chose to investigate this

topic because the energy usage of vending machines at BC had not been previously determined,

and we suspected that due to their high energy intensity and prevalence around campus, vending

machines contributed substantially to the overall energy usage of the university. In its mission

statement, the Boston College Office of Sustainability declares “the university is committed to

conserving resources and reducing the impact that its services and activities place on the

environment” (“Sustainability at Boston College”, 2014). Because “electricity represents the

majority of the utility use at Boston College” (Ibid) the efforts of the university to achieve

sustainability have been concentrated in this sector. Some past projects that have been

undertaken by the university to decrease energy use include switching all refrigerators on lower

campus to energy star certified appliances and converting lighting in many campus buildings to

LED light bulbs (Ibid). However, prior to our vending machine energy audit, BC had not made

any significant efforts towards analyzing or reducing the energy usage of vending machines.

Therefore, addressing the energy usage of vending machines across campus would offer many

financial and environmental benefits to the BC community as well as contribute to the fulfillment

of the BC Office of Sustainability’s goals. From our research and data collection we intended to

propose informed recommendations to the BC Facilities Management Department to improve the

energy efficiency of the vending machines on campus and reduce overall energy costs. We also

hoped to contribute the the university’s efforts towards sustainability.

As a team, we met with the BC Energy Manager John MacDonald, the BC Vending

Relations Specialist Paul Karamourtopoulos, and contacted representatives from the Coca-Cola

Company and Next Generation. After meeting with these representatives, we determined the

options for energy reduction that would be most feasible and cost effective for the BC

community and structured our project accordingly. Throughout our project we chose to evaluate

the following methods: changing fluorescent lights to light emitting diode (LED) lights,

installing supplemental energy conservation devices (Vending Miser), de-lamping the machines,

and adding compressor controls.

4

Another priority of our project was to determine if all vending machines across BC’s

campuses were energy star certified. Energy star vending machines are 50% more energy

efficient than standard vending machine models, yet provide the same quality of lighting and

refrigeration by incorporating more efficient compressors, fan motors, and lighting systems

(“Vending Machines for Consumers”, 2014). Thus, it would be very beneficial to ensure that at

least most of the machines are energy star certified. We were not able to calculate the exact cost

that would be required to update BC’s vending machines to energy star certification due to

limitations in company policies on releasing this data, however, from our research we are

confident that such changes would yield significant benefits.

We also aimed to map the locations of all snack and beverage vending machines across

BC’s campuses to gain a better understanding of the distribution of machines and the volume of

machines in particular areas. BC vending services, in conjunction with Coca-Cola and Next

Generation, controls the location and number of machines to be placed on campus. Our original

goal was to calculate the cost-benefits of removing machines from areas of high volume,

however, it was determined that such a change would be a corporate decision of which we had

little influence over. Although this is something we could not look further into, we were still able

to analyze many different solutions that were determined to be more feasible, as mentioned

above, and from this analysis were able to make recommendations to BC.

Methods As previously stated in our proposal, we evaluated the most economical and

environmentally beneficial ways to improve energy efficiency in relation to the vending

machines on BC’s campuses. We used multiple methods and analyses to create a holistic

evaluation of the most effective way to assess the energy usage of the university’s vending

machines. With this in mind, we performed our own research, collected data, and analyzed our

results to reach a conclusion and recommendation for the vending machine representatives at

BC, Next Generation, and the Coca-Cola Company.

With the assistance of representatives from Coca-Cola and Next Generation, as well as

employees from BC who work directly with the vending machines we extensively researched the

existing vending machines on campus. Our team met multiple times with these representatives to

learn about the logistics about these vending machines to gain a better understanding of how they

5

operate. While working with these representatives we were able to identify and research details

regarding the energy usage of every machine available on campus. We visited every machine on

BC’s campuses and recorded its model number, if it had LED lighting, a card reader, was energy

star certified, and any other information that seemed relevant about that individual machine. This

helped us to understand the full vending machine spectrum at BC and gave us the foundation for

understanding the restraints and focus of our project. We also conducted our own research

involving external sources such as articles and case studies. These resources were instrumental in

providing a model for how to create our cost benefit analysis and understand best practices. In

addition to this research, we compared the results of our investigation with those of other

colleges in Boston using information gathered from articles and studies that investigated vending

machine energy efficiency in these institutions. Through all of our external research, we found

that many other schools had conducted similar audits of their vending machines’ energy usage

and had investigated and documented numerous retrofitting strategies. This was very helpful for

us in determining what data to collect and what different energy saving options we should study.

After collecting the data from the representatives, investigating the individual machines and

researching case studies and articles, we conducted our own data collection on the energy usage

of the vending machines.

We measured the energy output of both Next Generation and Coca-Cola machines with a

Kill-a-Watt meter. We collected energy usage data with this mechanism from 4 of the most

common vending machines models on campus, models RVCC804, RVCC660, National 167, and

National 181 with the help of several representatives from BC. The Kill-a-Watt meters provided

the wattage for each machine, which we converted to kilowatts by dividing by 1000. Often the

wattage cycled between several different numbers because of lights that would flash on and off,

so we used the average of these numbers. With this sample, we were able to estimate the energy

usage of the 146 vending machines located across Main, Brighton, and Newton Campus. We

calculated the cost savings for each of the energy solutions. Using these numbers we compared

our new cost savings data to the original energy output of the BC vending machines.

Below are the calculations for electrical costs and carbon dioxide emissions from

operating the vending machines each year. We used these formulas to analyze the energy

efficiency of the vending machines and calculate the savings from new, more energy efficient

methods.

6

Total cost per vending machine per year:

( kWh/machine/day) * ($/kWh) * (365 days/1 year) = $/year/machine Total cost of all vending machines each year:

($/year/machine) * (# machines) = $/year

Total CO2 emitted per vending machine per year: ((kwh/machine/day) * (365 days/1 year) * (CO2/kWh)) / 2000 = CO2 tons/year/machine Total CO2 of all vending machines each year: CO2 tons/year/machine * (# machines) = CO2 tons/year

We estimated the energy and cost savings from the retrofitting strategies that we

investigated from external research and also utilized the above calculations. We were not able to

test the retrofitting options ourselves because of BC’s vending policies, so we estimated the

savings for each strategy, usually in the form of a percentage saved, from numerous case studies

and articles that discussed similar vending machine energy audits and savings methods.

In testing the energy output of the vending machines we used the measurement of overall

energy output, capturing the energy usage of the lightbulbs in all machines and the energy

output of the refrigeration systems in the beverage vending machines. After examining the four

vending machines, as mentioned above, we were able to project savings BC would incur if all

vending machines were retrofitted with the different energy efficient solutions, which is outlined

in more detail in our results.

Specifically, we recorded the data in Excel spreadsheets and represented the data in

graphs to clearly present the cost-benefit analysis of the different strategies investigated. Our

goal was to place a metric on the economic and environmental impact of the vending machines

to actualize the energy cost savings as well as carbon dioxide savings. After compiling each

separate method and comparing our critical data collection, analysis, and research, we found a

holistic solution and concluded with a recommendation that benefitted the vending machine

companies, BC, and its consumers.

7

External Research An aspect of this investigation involved comparing the vending machine energy

efficiency status of BC to that of other universities and institutions across the Greater Boston

Area. Research literature about the vending machine energy efficiency status at Harvard

University, Tufts University, and State University of New York (SUNY) were compiled and

analyzed to determine the most efficient energy reduction strategies and the savings that resulted

from these strategies. A study at Harvard University reported significant energy savings in 2002

by implementing a supplemental energy efficiency device called the Vending Miser. The

Vending Miser is an energy conservation device that utilizes motion sensor technology to

minimize the energy usage of a vending machine. Specifically, the device is plugged into a

power source and then connected to the vending machine. In addition, the device has an external

EnergyMiser Controller that is permanently mounted on a nearby wall. Lastly, an Occupancy

Sensor is connected to this Controller to detect the consumer traffic patterns and determine

whether to power the machine on or off (“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products,” 2014).

Ultimately, if the sensor does not detect any motion for 15 minutes, the Vending Miser device

shuts off the machine’s compressor, lights, and other electronics (Powell, 2002). These devices

are typically priced around $189 and are estimated to reduce total vending machine energy costs

by 46% if the machine is not energy star certified and by 19% if the machine is energy star

certified (“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products,” 2014). From the Harvard study, the

researchers determined that their average beverage vending machine each used about 3,468 kWh

of energy annually. With the implementation of the Vending Miser, the university was able to

cut energy consumption in half. Additionally, after a year of using the Vending Miser, the

university saved a total of $200,000 in electricity use. A great majority of these savings resulted

from the device turning off the vending machines during the weekends when there were periods

of great consumer inactivity (Powell, 2002). However, it should be noted that these savings in

2002 were so large because these vending machines are not as energy efficient as the modern

models.

Similarly, Tufts University conducted a study where their researchers measured the

energy output of beverage vending machines before and after the installation of Vending Miser

devices. With the added Vending Miser devices, weekly electricity usage was reduced from

66.71 kWh to 33 kWh for each machine. These devices also reduced annual greenhouse gas

8

emissions by about 1.12 tons per machine. On average, the estimated savings translated to $192

per year (“Vending Misers”, 2001); however, this was a modest estimation because the annual

calculations assumed that the dorm building, in which the vending machine was located, would

be occupied for the entire year. In reality, vacation periods would produce greater amounts of

consumer inactivity and correlate to greater savings. Furthermore, the university worked to

promote campus awareness of these innovative energy reducing devices by posting signs on the

vending machines equipped with Vending Misers.

We believe that the savings reported in both the Tufts and Harvard University studies

could be translated to the vending machines at BC if these Vending Miser devices were installed

on each machine. However, an obstacle that may impede the implementation of these devices is

the fact that nearly all of BC’s vending machines have card readers. Most students depend on

these card readers to quickly and conveniently purchase goods at the vending machines, though

if the machines are unplugged or powered down by a Vending Miser device, the card readers no

longer work and must be manually reset by a technician. When the card readers are not working,

most students would be unable to buy products from these machines and the university would

experience a decline in consumer activity. Furthermore, due to the widespread locations of these

machines across BC’s multiple campuses, requiring technicians to constantly reset the card

readers at each of the machines may not be practical. Nevertheless, Vending Miser devices could

still be implemented in the vending machines at BC if the devices were modified so that they

would turn off the machines without affecting the card readers.

In addition to supplemental energy reducing devices, Tufts University also replaced their

old vending machines with energy star certified machines. Energy star certified machines can be

classified as Class A or Class B machines depending on their different refrigeration mechanisms.

Class A machines cool the entire internal volume in the refrigerated unit, use shelf-style vending

mechanisms, and tend to utilize transparent glass fronts. In these machines, all of the beverages

are placed in the cooling area. In contrast, Class B machines cool specific zones of the unit and

generally have opaque fronts, provide better insulation from ambient conditions, and utilize

stack-style vending mechanisms (Kasavana, 2009). Furthermore, energy star vending machines

must be able to operate in at least one type of low power mode including: functioning with the

lights off for a period of time, operating at an average temperature of 40o F for a selected amount

9

of time, or both of these methods combined. These machines must be able to resume their normal

functional settings during periods of activity (“Key Product Criteria”, 2014)

These energy star machines use approximately 50 percent less energy than the

conventional units and on average save $150 per machine each year. Energy star vending

machines are able to save 1,700 kWh per year with their more efficient compressors, fan

systems, and LED lighting. Many other institutions such as SUNY at Buffalo also replaced 132

machines with new energy star units that have produced immense savings of $20,948 and

261,849 kWh each year. Many of these universities have determined that investing in energy

reducing technology for vending machines is a low-cost and high-return procedure (“Energy

Consumption on Ice,” 2009).

Another strategy that we investigated to improve the energy efficiency of vending

machines involved removing the vending machine lights or de-lamping the machines. De-

lamping vending machines has the potential to reduce energy costs by approximately 35%

(Morton, 2012). For vending machines that roughly use 7 - 14 kWh daily, these savings can

translate to about $127 per machine each year (Ibid). However, if such a strategy as de-lamping

is to be implemented, it is important to notify consumers that the vending machines without

lights are still functional. This could be done through placing signs near the machines that not

only notify consumers that the machines are operational, but also communicate to them the

benefits of de-lamping the machines. Moreover, de-lamping vending machines may not be a

popular option with vendors because of the possibility of a reduction in sales. According to the

Coca-Cola Company, “lights help reinforce brand and package availability and communicates to

the consumers that the brands are ice cold, ready to purchase, and that the vender is operating

properly” (The Coca-Cola Company, 2012). Regardless, de-lamping vending machines is a

strategy with no installation cost to BC and only minor labor costs to the vending companies that

can yield significant reductions in vending machine energy usage.

In addition to removing the lights from vending machines, investing in long-lasting and

energy efficient LED lights can reduce electricity costs. Many brands of LED lighting such as

CLEANLIFETM LED lights can easily be replaced in existing T8 and T12 fluorescent bulb

fixtures. Furthermore, changing from fluorescent bulbs to these LED lights can produce up to

62.5% in energy savings. In general, these bulbs have lifetimes up to 50,000 hours, are three

times brighter than fluorescent bulbs to increase consumer attraction, and produce less heat

10

(“Fluorescent Replacement LED Lights,” 2014). LEDs function well in low temperatures and do

not flicker or require time to warm up. Unlike their fluorescent counterparts, LEDs are also glass

and mercury free which makes recycling easy and decreases the risk of releasing toxins into the

environment. Because of these additional benefits, these LED lights tend to be more expensive

than the fluorescent bulbs. A 2 foot fluorescent bulb can generally be priced at roughly $5 while

a 2 foot LED lamp can cost relatively $46.75. However, switching from 18W fluorescent lamps

to 10W CLEANLIFETM LED Light Tubes can save approximately $276.5 over a period of 4

years (Ibid). Although these LED lamps cost more, they have longer lifespans and therefore

require less lamps to be purchased and fewer service calls for installation in comparison to that

of the fluorescent lamps. Installing LED lights into BC’s snack vending machines may appear to

be a costly option, however, representatives at Next Generation agreed to cover the cost of

installation for BC (Keating, 2014). Ultimately, retrofitting vending machines with energy

efficient LED lights proves to be a beneficial energy investment capable of producing reductions

in energy costs.

A final strategy to reduce energy usage of beverage vending machines is installing

compressor controllers. These energy saving devices “feature an occupancy sensor that switches

the machine to unoccupied mode after 15 minutes of room inactivity, reducing the number of

compressor cycles required” (Morton, 2012). This device only raises the product temperature 2-5

degrees, which is not damaging to the product or even noticeable to consumers (Ibid). It is

estimated that this device would decrease energy usage of the machines by 30% (Ibid). Since

these machines do not turn the power off completely, they would not negatively impact the card

readers. These devices are estimated to cost between $100 and $200. It is also important to note

that compressor controllers should not be utilized in vending machines that sell dairy products or

other foods that are capable of spoiling. However, none of the existing beverage vending

machines at BC carry perishable products, therefore, adding compressor controllers to the

machines would not be an issue. In the end, implementing compressor controllers to the beverage

machines at BC is a viable option that can help to extend the operating life of these machines and

reduce their overall energy usage.

11

Results In our study, the initial step was to locate all of the vending machines on BC’s campus

and record detailed information about them including the machine location, model number,

energy star certification, lighting, card reader capabilities, and any additional relevant

information. The full list can be seen in Appendix A. We then put all of the locations of the

vending machines on maps of the BC campuses, along with the volume of the machines in the

individual locations to gain a full understanding of the distribution of the machines on BC’s

campuses (see Appendix B).

A major focus of this data collection was the lighting within the machines. The lights in

the Next Generation machines were very easy to view. We found that of the 46 Next Generation

machines on BC’s campuses, six of them did not have LED lights. The Coca-Cola machines,

however, were much harder to assess. There was no way to see inside the machine to view the

bulb. We also attempted to gain the Coca-Cola lighting information through our many different

contacts, however they were unable to provide this information to us. Therefore, we decided to

focus on an LED solution just for the Next Generation machines.

Another focus of this data collection was the energy star certification of the machines.

We determined if the machines were energy star certified by looking for energy star stickers on

the machines and also verifying the model numbers on the energy star website (“ENERGY

STAR Certified Vending Machines”, 2014). Most of the Coca-Cola machines were energy star

certified. Specifically, 70 out of the 101 Coca-Cola Machines were energy star certified.

However, none of the Next Generation machines were energy star certified (see Appendix D:

Table 1 & Appendix D: Figure 1). This was definitely an area with significant opportunity for

improvement.

After we collected all of this information about the individual machines, we created maps

of the different campuses with the machine locations documented on them. This provided an

easy way to view the locations and volumes of the vending machines throughout BC. These

maps can be viewed in Appendix B. We found that in some areas, particularly the dining halls,

there were large concentrations of vending machines.

After we had the results of these initial steps, we began to conduct our cost-benefit

analysis. First, we calculated the current energy usage of the vending machines using the data we

collected from our machine tests. From this it was determined that the machines collectively use

12

305.75 kilowatt-hours per day. This calculates out to an annual energy cost of $15,529.52 (see

Appendix D: Table 2). It was assumed that the vending machines were on every day of the year

(MacDonald, 2014). The $15,529.52 annual energy costs was a substantial amount of money and

was definitely something that we could reduce. In addition, these machines caused 119.41 tons

of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere annually. This carbon dioxide number was

calculated assuming that the electricity that these vending machines used was produced using

coal (“How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Produced,” 2014) which is most likely the source of BC’s

electricity (MacDonald, 2014). Overall, reducing the vending machines’ energy usage would

also prevent some of this carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Therefore

retrofitting these machines would have both economic and environmental benefits.

The four different retrofitting strategies we tested as mentioned previously were replacing

the non-LED lights, installing Vending Miser energy management devices on the machines, de-

lamping the machines and installing compressor controls on the Coca-Cola machines. The first

option of replacing the fluorescent lights with LED lights was only applicable to the Next

Generation machines as mentioned above. The calculations were conducted assuming that the six

Next Generation machines that did not have LED lighting would be retrofitted with LED ones. It

was calculated that this would lead to annual cost savings of $39.31 and annual CO2 savings of

0.31 tons. This was calculated from the data that we collected on the energy usage of a machine

with LED lighting and one without. We then compared the two metrics to determine the savings.

The second option of installing energy saving devices assumed that Vending Miser

devices were installed on the Coca-Cola vending machines and Snack Miser devices were

installed on the Next Generation vending machines. The same company, Vending Miser,

produces both of these devices. The break down in costs per machine between energy star

machines and non-energy star machines can be seen in Appendix D: Figure 2. With these

numbers it was determined that retrofitting the vending machines with these devices would lead

to $4,109.39 in annual cost savings. Furthermore this would prevent 31.46 tons of carbon dioxide

from being released into the atmosphere annually as well. The Vending Miser devices cost $189

and the Snack Miser devices cost $89 (“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products”, 2014). This

total initial investment of $23,183 would be paid back through energy cost savings in 5.64 years.

The third option was de-lamping the machines. This requires taking the lamps out of each

machine, which leads to approximately 35% in energy savings (Morton, 2012). This would bring

13

about annual cost savings of $5,460.89 and carbon dioxide savings of 41.99 tons. This de-

lamping process would most likely not cost BC anything as many vending companies will do

this for free (Ibid). This method would lead to the greatest savings and requires no initial

investment by BC.

The fourth option was adding compressor controls to the Coca-Cola vending machines.

As previously mentioned, these devices reduce energy usage of the vending machines by 30%

(Ibid). Consequently, this strategy would bring annual cost savings of $4,003.34 and CO2

savings of 30.81 tons. These compressors would initially cost BC $12,625, but with the annual

savings this cost would be paid back in 3.15 years.

All of these methods provide savings to BC in both energy costs and carbon dioxide

emissions (see Appendix D: Figure 3 & Appendix D: Figure 4). In addition the energy cost

savings data can be seen in Appendix D: Table 3. Our study assumed that every machine

possible would be retrofitted. Per machine data can be seen in Appendix D: Figure 5 to better

understand the change in energy costs associated with implementing the retrofitting strategy on

just one machine.

Analysis and Conclusions There are many conclusions that can be drawn from these results. Firstly, the map shows

that in areas of high volume there are many machines (see Appendix B). For example, there are 8

Coca-Cola machines in McElroy, which already has two dining halls in it where snacks and

beverages can be purchased. Having 8 machines is excessive. Although we were not allowed to

know the data behind the usage and profitability of these individual machines

(Karamourtopoulos, 2014), we believe that some of the machines in areas like this could be

removed. This would lower BC’s annual energy costs by $132.12 for every removed Coca-Cola

machine and $47.50 for every Next Generation machine removed. This removal process would

not cost anything to BC, as the vending companies would cover the cost of the removal of the

machines (Ibid). Overall, taking some vending machines out could be very beneficial. However,

more information would have to be made available to fully understand how much profits would

be lost from taking these machines out.

Also from the map we discovered that the newer, more efficient machines were in the

more visible areas such as popular academic buildings and the libraries. The older, less efficient

14

machines were located in the basements of freshmen residence halls and other less popular spots

on campus. These machines in less popular areas have most likely not been upgraded because no

one has complained about them looking old or inefficient. However, if students and

administrators voiced their opinions about these machines, the vending companies would be

more likely to switch them to the newer, more efficient models. These models would likely use

less energy and be energy star certified as “ENERGY STAR certification is required on all new

Coca-Cola vending machines” (The Coca-Cola Company, 2012). This would most likely not

only save energy costs from more efficient machines but would also improve profits, as these

machines would look more appealing and encourage customers to make purchases more often.

Furthermore, the Next Generation machines are currently not energy star certified. Again,

getting students and administrators to request energy star certified machines could have a great

impact on getting newer models to campus and thus lowering BC’s energy costs with little effort

or investment from BC. As mentioned above, most current energy star models use 50% less

energy and thus would lead to additional energy cost savings. The information about the energy

usage of available newer models was unfortunately not made available to us, thus we could not

do a full analysis of this option. However, both companies seemed very open to making changes

to the machines that were requested by the university (Keating, 2014). This is a viable option that

should be considered by BC.

The four retrofitting options that we analyzed all brought cost and carbon dioxide

savings. However, they each have their pros and cons, particularly when it comes to the

feasibility of each option. The first option of switching the LED lights out in Next Generation

machines is very feasible. In our conversation with Mike Keating we found that if BC identified

the non-LED lights and requested them to be switched out, they could do this at no cost to BC.

Although this option leads to very minimum savings of just $39 a year, it should definitely be

undertaken because it could be easily implemented at no cost to the university.

The second strategy of installing Vending Miser devices would have many savings in

both cost and carbon dioxide. However, it would take over 5 years to pay back the initial

investment. It may be hard to convince management of implementing this strategy when savings

will not occur for so long. Furthermore, these types of energy management devices are currently

not compatible with the vending machines at BC because of the card readers (MacDonald, 2014).

In addition, Tufts University also noted several complications with the installation process for

15

the Vending Miser devices. Before the energy conservation device can be installed, the vending

machine must be disconnected from it’s electrical outlet. This often requires a great amount of

labor and coordination with the manufacturing company. Additionally, in areas where several

vending machines were connected to the same electrical circuit, the intense electrical load often

overwhelmed the Vending Miser and the entire circuit. New additional circuits had to be

installed in order for the vending machines to function normally again (Vending Misers, 2001).

Despite these drawbacks of the Vending Miser, looking into these devices further and

increasing the feasibility of these devices would be very beneficial as there are many additional

benefits besides cost and CO2 savings. They often lengthen the life of the machines because the

machines are powered down more often (“Vending Miser FAQs”, 2014). Moreover, Vending

Miser claims that the devices will increase sales because the vending machines will attract even

more attention when the machines power up and the lights flash, encouraging potential

customers to make purchases (Ibid). This option should definitely be investigated further.

The third energy saving option was de-lamping the machines. This could very easily be

done at potentially no cost to the university as many vending companies will do this for free

(Morton, 2012). This strategy would bring the most substantial cost and CO2 savings compared

to all of the other options analyzed (see Appendix D: Figure 3 & Appendix D: Figure 4).

However, there are many drawbacks to it as well. It is speculated that de-lamping the machines

would be much less profitable because potential buyers would not be attracted to the dark

machines and may think they were broken (“Vending Miser FAQs”, 2014). Therefore, it is not

likely that the administration would be willing to do this even though it does provide the most

cost and CO2 savings of $5,460.89 and 41.99 tons respectively. This strategy may be made more

effective by putting signs on the machines that explain the energy saving tactic (Morton, 2012).

However, this strategy may still face opposition from the vending companies.

The final option was adding compressor controls to the Coca-Cola vending machines.

Since these only change the compressor cycle when the machine is switched to inactive mode

after 15 minutes (Ibid), they are much more feasible. They do not switch the whole machine off

and thus do not impact the card readers on the machine. They also extend the life of the machine

because the compressor is not required to work at full capacity constantly and thus can last

longer (Ibid). This additionally reduces the maintenance costs for the machine because the

compressor does not break down as much when it is not working at full capacity (Ibid). The only

16

downside is that there may be initial labor costs if the vending companies do not agree to install

the devices for free. However, Morton claims that some utilities offer a turnkey program that

installs the compressor controls at no cost while others provide rebates for 50-75% of the unit

cost (Ibid). This is definitely something that could be looked into with BC’s particular utility

provider as this would substantially reduce the 3 year payback period.

Recommendations Just focusing on cost and carbon savings, de-lamping the machines would be the best

option for BC. However, as mentioned above, this option is not the most feasible. Therefore, the

best and most feasible decision would be to implement both the LED light and compressor

control strategies. Switching to LED lights in the Next Generation machines would be no cost to

BC but would provide them with $39 in annual savings. Although this is not much, there is no

downside to this option. On the other hand, the compressor control option provides substantial

annual savings of $4,003 and the initial investment would be paid back fully in just over three

years. This payback period could even be reduced by utility company turnkey programs that

cover at least part of the costs. Together these options would provide $4,042.65 in cost savings

and 31.12 tons of carbon dioxide savings annually if they are implemented on every machine.

Shutting down machines should also be further investigated. This type of study would

need to be conducted by a higher level of administration as the profit and usage information for

the vending machines is sensitive information. Therefore, the BC administration should look

further into this option. It could provide $132.12 savings in energy costs for every Coca-Cola

machine removed and $47.50 for every Next Generation machine. Ultimately, removing multiple

machines could have large benefits.

Finally, students and administration personnel should also start requesting more efficient

machines. This could make a large impact on the energy usage of the machines and requires no

investment from the school. The vending companies are receptive to BC’s preferences and

requests, therefore when they are addressed there is opportunity for improvement.

These recommendations all greatly help BC improve its energy efficiency regarding its

vending machines. They all provide significant energy cost savings and limit BC’s carbon

dioxide emissions. In addition, most of these changes require minimal effort from the school,

while bringing large savings in energy costs and CO2 emissions.

17

Conclusion The purpose of this report was to examine the energy usage and carbon footprint of the

vending machines on BC’s campuses and assess all possible methods to increase their energy

efficiency and sustainability. To accomplish this goal our team documented all vending

machines across campus, measured the energy use of multiple models, researched the available

alternatives and results of implementing these changes, and created a cost-benefit analysis to

quantify our findings. The results of our project found that there are many ways for BC to

improve the energy efficiency of its vending machines. Furthermore, there are pros and cons

associated with each energy efficiency alternative that we examined. Based on these results, we

recommend installing LED lights into the Next Generation machines and compressor controllers

into the Coca-Cola machines. The two options combined provide cost savings of $4,043 and

carbon dioxide savings of 31 tons annually. BC should take our recommendations into

consideration and continue monitoring and investigating the vending machines at the university

in the future.

18

Works Cited

"ENERGY STAR Certified Vending Machines." EPA ENERGY STAR. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Apr.

2014. <http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-vending-machines/>.

“Fluorescent Replacement LED Lights.” Vendors Exchange International Inc. Unified Strategies

Group, Inc., 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://www.veii.com/innovations/ledbulbs>.

"How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Produced per Kilowatt hour When Generating Electricity with

Fossil Fuels?" U.S. Energy Information Administration, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Apr.

2014. <http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11/>.

Karamourtopoulos, Paul. “Boston College Vending Relations Specialist”. McElroy Commons,

Boston College. February 10th, 2014.

Kasavana, Michael. "ENERGY STAR: What It Means to Vending Market Watch."

VendingMarketWatch. Automatic Merchandiser, 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/article/10257118/energy-star-what-it-means-to-

vending>.

Keating, Michael. “Next Generation, Boston College Representative”. McElroy Commons,

Boston College. February 10th, 2014.

MacDonald, John. “Energy Manager, Boston College”. St. Clement’s Hall, Boston College.

February 7th, 2014.

Morton, Jennie. “5 Ways to Green Your Vending Machines.” Buildings Smarter Facility

Management. Stamats Communications, Inc., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/14826/title/5-ways-to-green-your-

vending-machines.aspx>.

Powell, Alvin. “Vending Machine Innovations Slake Thirst for Savings.” Harvard Gazette:

Smart Machines save Energy. Harvard University, 17 Oct. 2002. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.17/15-vend.html>.

“Putting Vending Machine Energy Consumption on Ice.” Wildlife Promise. National Wildlife

Federation, 11 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://blog.nwf.org/2009/08/putting-

vending-machine-energy-consumption-on-ice/>.

"Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines Key Product Criteria." ENERGY STAR. United State

Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=vending_machines.pr_crit_

19

vending_machines>.

"Residence Hall Association of Boston College." BC.edu. Boston College, n.d. Web. 25 Apr.

2014. <http://www.bc.edu/offices/reslife/lifeinhalls/programs/rha.html>.

Segrave, Kerry. Vending Machines: An American Social History. Jefferson, NC: McFarland,

2002. Print.

"Sustainability at Boston College." BC.edu. Boston College, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/offices/sustainability.html>.

The Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company Vending Equipment: Commitment to

Improve Environmental Performance. Atlanta: Coca-Cola, 2012. Print.

"Vending Machines for Consumers." ENERGY STAR. Environmental Protection Agency.

Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <https://www.energystar.gov/certified-

products/detail/vending_machines>.

“Vending Misers.” Office of Sustainability. Tufts University, 2001. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.

<http://sustainability.tufts.edu/vending-misers/>.

“Vending Miser Energy Savings Products.” Vending Miser. Optimum Energy Products Ltd,

2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.vendingmiserstore.com/>.

"Vending Miser Frequently Asked Questions." Energy Misers. Sanders and Associates, LLC,

n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2014. <www.vendingenergymisers.com/documents/VendingMiser

FAQ.pdf>.

20

Appendix A: Vending Machine Detailed Location

0DLQ�&DPSXV�%ULJKWRQ�&DPSXV��&RFD�&ROD��&DPSDQHOOD�:D\��0DORQH\�+DOO� � <HV 59&&��(9 <HV��&DPSDQHOOD�:D\��0DORQH\�+DOO� � <HV 59&&��(9 <HV 'DVDQL��&RPPRQZHDOWK�$YHQXH � XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH��&RPP�$YH � 1R 59&&�� <HV��0RRUH�'U � 1R 59&&�� <HV��0RRUH�'U � 1R 59&&�� <HV��0RRUH�'U � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL��0RRUH�'U � 1R 59&&5�� <HV 9LWDPLQ�:DWHU%DSVW�/LEUDU\ � 1R 59&&�� <HV &RNH��DPSV��R]��VW�IORRU6W��&OHPHQWV�+DOO � XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH&DPSLRQ�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV 'DVDQL��EDVHPHQW�IORRU&DUQH\�+DOO � 1R 59&&5�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��EDVHPHQW�IORRU&DUQH\�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��ILUVW�IORRU&DUQH\�+DOO � 1R ,�59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV 'DVDQL��ILUVW�IORRU&KHYHUXV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV &RNH��QR�OLJKW&KHYHUXV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL&KHYHUXV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV 9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU

&RQWH�)RUXP��1RUWK�(QWUDQFH � 1R '1�� JODVV�IURQW�PDFKLQH 1RRQO\�PDFKLQH�RQ�ORZHU�Z�R�FDUG�UHDGHU��ODFNVOLJKWV�RI�DQ\�NLQG��PD\�QHHG�WR�EH�FKDQJHG"�

&RUFRUDQ�&RPPRQV � <HV 59&&�� <HV&RUFRUDQ�&RPPRQV � <HV 59&&�� <HV&RUFRUDQ�&RPPRQV � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL&RUFRUDQ�&RPPRQV � <HV 59&&��(9 <HV 'DVDQL&RUFRUDQ�&RPPRQV � <HV 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL&XVKLQJ�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 5HG�6WDFN�9HQGRU <HV &RNH&XVKLQJ�+DOO � 1R ,�59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU�PDFKLQH <HV 'DVDQL'HYOLQ�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU�PDFKLQH <HV &RNH��EDVHPHQW6WRNHV�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU�PDFKLQH <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU6WRNHV�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU�PDFKLQH <HV 'DVDQL��ILUVW�IORRU(GPRQGV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV(GPRQGV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL)HQZLFN�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL)HQZLFN�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV &RNH)LW]SDWULFN�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL)LW]SDWULFN�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV &RNH)LW]SDWULFN�+DOO � 1R 5XEEHG�RII <HV 9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU��VWLFNHU�ZDV�IDGHG)O\QQ�5HF�&HQWHU��3OH[� � <HV 59&&�� <HV)O\QQ�5HF�&HQWHU��3OH[� � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL)O\QQ�5HF�&HQWHU��3OH[� � 1R 59&&�� %DVNHWEDOO�FRXUW�3RZHUDGH�PDFKLQH)XOWRQ�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU�PDFKLQH <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU�DWULXP)XOWRQ�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU�PDFKLQH <HV 9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU��VW�IORRU�DWULXP)XOWRQ�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU�PDFKLQH <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU�DWULXP)XOWRQ�+DOO � 1R '1�� %LJ�JODVV�GRRU�PDFKLQH <HV 'DVDQL��VW�IORRU�DWULXP*DEHOOL�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV*DVVRQ�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��EDVHPHQW�IORRU*UH\FOLII�'RUPLWRU\ � XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH+LJJLQV�+DOO � 1R '��(�6,,� 6WDFN�YHQGRU��UHG�FRORU <HV &RFD�&ROD+LJJLQV�+DOO � 1R ,�59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV 'DVDQL+LJJLQV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RFD�&ROD,JQDFLR�+DOO � <HV 59&&��(9 <HV/R\ROD�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV &RNH��DPSV��R]/R\ROD�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV 9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU��DPSV��R]/\RQV�+DOO � <HV 59&&5�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV 'DVDQL��/\RQV�&DIH/\RQV�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��/\RQV�&DIH/\RQV�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��/\RQV�&DIH/\RQV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV 9LWDPLQ�:DWHU��*��9HQGLQJ�5RRP

%RVWRQ�&ROOHJH�9HQGLQJ�0DFKLQH�/RFDWLRQV /('�/LJKW"��<�1�(1(5*<�67$56WLFNHU"��<�1� 0RGHO�QXPEHU 'LIIHUHQW�W\SH�RI�PDFKLQH" &DUG�5HDGHU��<�1� 8QDEOH�WR�ORFDWH $GGLWLRQDO�,QIRUPDWLRQ

$SSHQGL[�$��9HQGLQJ�0DFKLQH�'HWDLOHG�,QIRUPDWLRQ

21

2121#Commonwealth#

Ave#

Theology#Library#

Coca%Cola'Vending'Machines'–'Main'Campus'Total:89'

Appendix'B:'Figure'1'

/\RQV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�5�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV 'DVDQL��*��9HQGLQJ�5RRP/\RQV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��*��9HQGLQJ�5RRP/\RQV�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��*��9HQGLQJ�5RRP0F(OUR\�&DUQH\�'LQLQJ � 1R 59&&�� <HD 9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU�E\�:5&0F(OUR\�&DUQH\�'LQLQJ � 1R 59&&�� <HV &RNH�E\�:5&0F(OUR\�&DUQH\�'LQLQJ � <HV 59&&5�� &RNH��QR�DPSV�LQIR0F(OUR\�&RPPRQV � <HV 59&&5�� &RNH�]HUR�PDFKLQH��DPSV��R]0F(OUR\�&RPPRQV � <HD 59&&5�� 9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU��DPSV��R]0F(OUR\�&RPPRQV � XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH0F(OUR\�(DJOHV�1HVW � 1R 59&&5�� <HV 'DVDQL��DPSV��R]0F(OUR\�(DJOHV�1HVW � XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH0F*XLQQ�+DOO � <HV 59&&��(9 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU��9HQGLQJ�0DFKLQH�5RRP0F*XLQQ�+DOO � <HV 59&&��(9 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU��9HQGLQJ�0DFKLQH�5RRP0F*XLQQ�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV 'DVDQL��VW�IORRU��9HQGLQJ�0DFKLQH�5RRP0HUNHUW�%XLOGLQJ � 1R 59&&�� 6WDFN�YHQGRU <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU21HLO�/LEUDU\ � <HV 5<2�� <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU��DPSV��R]21HLO�/LEUDU\ � <HV 59&&�� <HV &RNH��VW�IORRU��DPSV��R]21HLO�/LEUDU\ � 1R 59�� <HV &RNH��QG�IORRU�E\�&75&

21HLO�/LEUDU\ � 59&&�� 'DVDQL <HV'DVDQL��QG�IORRU�E\�FWUF��,�WKLQN�QRW�OHG�EHFDXVHQRW�DV�EULJKW

21HLO�/LEUDU\ � XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH ""5RQFDOOL�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV &RNH��DPSV��R]5XEHQVWHLQ�+DOO � <HV 59&&��(6 <HV5XEHQVWHLQ�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL6WD\HU�+DOO��7KH�*DWH� � 1R '��(�6,,� <HV6WD\HU�+DOO��7KH�*DWH� � 1R 59&&�� <HV 'DVDQL5REVKDP�7KHDUWHU��*UHHQ�5RRP � <HV 59&&�� <HV ORFDWHG�*UHHQ�5RRP��EDFNVWDJH�5REVKDP�7KHRORJ\�DQG�0LQLVWU\�/LEUDU\ �9RXWH�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV:DOVK�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV

:HOFK�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV&RNH��DPSV��R]��QR�OLJKW�RQ�DQGVRPHWKLQJ�F\FOHG�RQ�ZKLOH�WKHUH

:HOFK�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� <HV 9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU��DPSV��R]:HOFK�+DOO � XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH:LOOLDPV�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� <HV &RNH��DPSV��R]��F\FOHG�RQ�ZKLOH�,�ZDV�WKHUH

:LOOLDPV�+DOO � <HV 59&&5�� <HV9LWDPLQ�ZDWHU��DPSV��R]��GLGQW�VHH�WR�EHUHIULJHUDWLQJ

1(;7�*(1(5$7,21��0DLQ�&DPSXV��/DNH�6W� XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH��&RPP�$YH�&KHVWQXW�+LOO XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH��&RPP�$YH <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV��/DNH�6W XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH��0RRUH�'U <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV��0RRUH�'U <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV%DSVW�/LEUDU\�&ROOHJH�5G <HV 1R 1RQH &RIIHH�PDFKLQH <HV &RIIHH�PDFKLQH��EDVHPHQW%DSVW�/LEUDU\�&ROOHJH�5G <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV �VW�IORRU��DPSV��YROWV&DPSLRQ�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV %DVHPHQW�IORRU&DUQH\�+DOO�&ROOHJH�5G <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV )LUVW�IORRU

&XVKLQJ�+DOO�&ROOHJH�5G <HV 1R1DWLRQDO��"�1RRWKHU�LQIR�IRXQG

0DFKLQH�ZLWK�IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV�JODVV�GRRU <HV

'HYOLQ�+DOO�&ROOHJH�5G <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV %DVPHQW�IORRU

(GPRQGV�+DOO 1R 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HVPXFK�ROGHU�VW\OH��RQO\��RQ�ORZHU�FDPSXV�RQO\�1*�Z�R�/('�

)LWVSDWULFN�+DOO�&ROOHJH�5G <HV 1R �� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV \HV ��YROW��K]��DPSV)O\QQ�5HF�&HQWHU��3OH[� <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV)XOWRQ�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV �VW�IORRU�DWULXP��DGGHG�WKLV�WR�WKH�OLVW*DEHOOL�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV



22

Coca%Cola'Vending'Machine'LocaAons'–'Newton'Campus'Total:'12'

Appendix'B:'Figure'2'

*DVVRQ�+DOO�0DLQ�&DPSXV <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV %DVHPHQW�IORRU��KHDOWK\��YLWDOLWLHV��RSWLRQV*UH\FOLI�%VPQW��&RP�$YH XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH

+LJJLQV�+DOO�OHYHO�� <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO��0DFKLQH�ZLWK�IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV�JODVV�GRRU <HV

.RVWUD�+DOO 1R 1R ��9HU\�ROG��JODVV�IURQW�ZLWKSXVK�EXWWRQV <HV ��YROWV��DPSV��K]��YHU\�ROG

/\RQV�5P�*��&ROOHJH�5G 1R 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�GRRU <HV��PRGLILHG� *��9HQGLQJ�5RRP

0F(OUR\�&RPPRQV 1R 1R 1DWLRQDO��*ODVV�GRRU�ZLWK�ROG�SXVKEXWWRQV <HD (DJOHV�QHVW��DPSV��YROWDJH

0F*XLQQ�+DOO�&ROOHJH�5G 1R 1R 1DWLRQDO��2OG�EODFN�PDFKLQH��ROGEXWWRQV <HV �VW�IORRU��9HQGLQJ�0DFKLQH�5RRP

0F*XLQQ�+DOO�&ROOHJH�5G 1R 1R 1RW�)RXQG &RIIHH�YHQGLQJ�PDFKLQH <HV �VW�IORRU��9HQGLQJ�0DFKLQH�5RRP0HUNHUW�&KHPLVWU\�&QWU <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV �VW�IORRU21HLO�/LEUDU\��VW�)OU <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW�IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV �VW�IORRU��DPSV��YROWDJH21HLO�/LEUDU\��VW�)OU 1R 1R 1RQH &RIIHH�PDFKLQH <HV �VW�IORRU��GXOO�OLJKWLQJ�VR�,�WKLQN�QRW�OHG

21HLO�/LEUDU\��VW�)OU <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO��*ODVV�IURQW�ZLWK�IODVKLQJOLJKWV <HV �VW�IORRU��DPSV��YROWDJH

21HLO�/LEUDU\��QG�)OU <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO��*ODVV�IURQW�ZLWK�IODVKLQJOLJKWV <HV �QG�IORRU�E\�&75&��DPSV��YROWDJH

21HLO�/LEUDU\��QG�)OU <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO��*ODVV�IURQW�ZLWK�IODVKLQJOLJKWV <HV �QG�IORRU�E\�&75&��DPSV��YROWDJH

5REVKDP�7KHDUWHU��*UHHQ�5RRP <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV *UHHQ�5RRP6W�&OHPHQWV�%VPQW��)RVWHU XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH6W�&OHPHQWV�5LJKW��)RVWHU XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH

6WD\HU�+DOO��7KH�*DWH� <HV 1R1DWLRQDO��U <HV

6WRNHV�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV �VW�IORRU9RXWH�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV

9RXWH�+DOO XQDEOH�WR�ORFDWH1H[W�*HQ�VSUHDGKVHHW�LQGLFDWHV��GLIIHUHQW�VW\OH�WKDQ�PRVW�1*�PDFKLQH��V

:DOVK�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV:HOFK�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV ��YROWV��DPSV��K]:LOOLDPV�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� *ODVV�IURQW��IODVKLQJ�OLJKWV <HV ��YROWV��DPSV��K]

1HZWRQ�&DPSXV��&RFD�&ROD'XFKHVQH�+DOO � 1R GQ��H��V�� <HV'XFKHVQH�+DOO � <HV 59&&��HY GDVDQL <HV+DUGH\�+RXVH � 1R 59&&�� <HV+DUGH\�+RXVH � 1R UY\�� YLWDPLQ�ZDWHU <HV.H\HV�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� GLVDQL <HV.H\HV�+DOO � <HV 59&&�� FRNH�PDFKLQH <HV.H\HV�+DOO � <HV 59&&��HY YLWDPLQ�ZDWHU <HV/DZ�6FKRRO � 1R 59&&�� FRNH�PDFKLQH <HV6WXDUW�+DOO � 1R 59&&�� GDVDQL <HV6WXDUW�+DOO � 1R U\�� GDVDQL <HV6WXDUW�+DOO � 1R 59&&)�� FRNH�PDFKLQH <HV6WXDUW�+DOO � 1R 59&&5�� FRNH�PDFKLQH <HV

1HZWRQ�FDPSXV��1H[W*HQ'XVFKHVQH�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV+DUG\�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV.H\HV�+DOO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV6WXDUW�+OO <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV6WXDUW�/DZ�(OHYDWRU <HV 1R 1DWLRQDO�� <HV



23

Appendix B: Vending Machine Locations

11 Theology Library

2

14

1

13

3

5

2

1

2

2

2 3

3

4

1

7

8

3

5

2

3

32

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1 2121Commonwealth

Ave

Coca-Cola Vending Machines – Main CampusTotal:89

Appendix B: Figure 1

24

3

2

2

41

Coca-Cola Vending Machine Locations – Newton CampusTotal: 12


25

2121Commonwealth

Ave

1 117 Lake St.

Next Generation Vending Machines – Main CampusTotal: 40

11

1 9 Lake St.

2

1

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

2

1

5

1

2

1

1

2

1

11


Next Generation Vending Machine Locations – Newton CampusTotal: 5

1

1

2

1


26

Appendix C: Excel Spreadsheets/Calculations Appendix C: Figure 1 - Base Case Calculations

Base Case

CO2 produced per kilowatt hour 2.14

Coke Machines NextGen Machines Number of MachinesNewton Campus with LED 12 5Newton Campus without LEDBrighton Campus with LED 4 5Brighton without LED Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus with LED 85 29Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus without LED 6

Total with LED 101 39Total without LED 0 6Total number 101 45

KilowattsLEDInitial watts 107 35Ending watts 110 41Average watts 108.5 38kilowatts 0.1085 0.038

Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 1.736 0.38Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 9.2225 1.14Total kilowatts 10.9585 1.52

Without LED Initial watts 0 43Ending watts 0 44Average watts 0 43.5kilowatts 0 0.0435

Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 0 0Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 0 0.261Total kilowatts 0 0.261

TotalTotal kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 1.736 0.38Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 9.2225 1.401Total kilowatts 10.9585 1.781 12.7395

Cost per Kilowatt HourCost per kilowatt hour (Newton and Brighton) $0.155 $0.155Newton and Brighton total cost per kilowatt hour $0.27 $0.06

Cost per kilowatt hour (Main campus) $0.136 $0.136Main Campus total cost per kilowatt hour $1.25 $0.19

Total cost per kilowatt hour $1.52 $0.25

27

Cost per Time Period Coke Next Generation Day

24 $36.56 $5.99 $42.55

Month 720 $1,096.80 $179.59 $1,276.40

Yearly 8760 $13,344.46 $2,185.06 $15,529.52

Annual C02 Usage in tons 119.41Annual CO2 Usage Per Machine Type 102.72 16.69Annual Cost Per Machine $132.12 $47.50

28

Appendix C: Figure 2 - Next Generation LED Analysis

Next Gen/ LED Analysis

Coke Machines NextGen Machines Number of MachinesNewton Campus New Machines 12 5Newton Campus Old MachinesBrighton Campus New Machines 4 5Brighton without Old MachinesChestnut Hill (Main) Campus New Machines 85 35Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus Old Machines

Total Old Machines 101 45Total New Machines 0 0Total number 101 45

KilowattsNew MachinesInitial watts 107 35Ending watts 110 41Average watts 108.5 38kilowatts 0.1085 0.038


Old MachinesInitial watts 107 43Ending watts 107 44Average watts 107 43.5kilowatts 0.107 0.0435

Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 0 0Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 0 0Total kilowatts 0 0





Cost per Time PeriodDay

24 $36.56 $5.88

Month 720 $1,096.80 $176.36

29

Yearly 8760 $13,344.46 $2,145.74 $15,490.20

Annual Total Savings$39.31

Annual Per Machine Savings$6.55

Total Costs to Operate Machines $132.12 $46.65

Annual CO2 Usage (tons)119.10

Annual C02 Savings (tons)0.31

Annual CO2 Usage by Maching Type 102.7162122 16.3843536

30

Appendix C: Figure 3 - Vending Miser Analysis

Vending Miser

Cost of Energy Saving Device $189.00 $89.00 $278.00

Percentage Saved on Energy Star Machines 19% 19%Percentage Saved on NonEnergy Star Machines 46% 46%

Coke Next GenerationNumber of MachinesNewton Campus Non-Energy Star 9 5Newton Campus Energy Star 3Brighton Campus Non-Energy Star 5Brighton Campus Energy Star 4Chestnut Hill (Main) Non-Energy Star 22 35Chestnut Hill (Main) Energy Star 63

Total Non-Energy Star Machines 31 45Total Energy Star Machines 70 0Total number 101 45

KilowattsNon-Energy Star MachinesInitial watts 58.59 20.52Ending watts 58.59 41Average watts 58.59 30.76kilowatts 0.05859 0.03076


Energy Star MachinesInitial watts 87.885 30.78Ending watts 87.885 30.78Average watts 87.885 30.78kilowatts 0.087885 0.03078

Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 0.615195 0Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 5.536755 0Total kilowatts 6.15195 0




31



24 $26.53 $4.76

Month 720 $795.88 $142.76

Yearly 8760 $9,683.20 $1,736.92 $11,420.12

Annual Total Savings $4,109.39

Annual Savings per Machine $36.25 $9.74Annual Costs $95.87 $37.76

Total Cost $19,089.00 $4,094.00 $23,183.00

Payback Amount 5.64



Annual CO2 Usage 74.69 13.26

Annual Cost of Operating Machines Base Case $132.12 $47.50ENERGY STAR $107.02 $38.48Non-ENERGY STAR $132.12 $47.50

32

Appendix C: Figure 4 - De-lamping Analysis

De-lamping

Percentage Saved from De-lamping 35%

Coke Machines NextGen Machines Number of MachinesNewton CampusNewton Campus Retrofitted 12 5Brighton CampusBrighton without Retrofitted 4 5Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus Retrofitted 85 35

Total Regular Machines 0 0Total Retrofitted Machines 101 45Total number 101 45

KilowattsRegular MachinesInitial watts 107 35Ending watts 110 41Average watts 108.5 38kilowatts 0.1085 0.038

Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 0 0Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 0 0Total kilowatts 0 0

Retrofitted MachinesInitial watts 70.525 24.7Ending watts 70.525 24.7Average watts 70.525 24.7kilowatts 0.070525 0.0247






33


24 $23.76 $3.82

Month 720 $712.92 $114.64

Yearly 8760 $8,673.90 $1,394.73 $10,068.63


Annual Savings per Machine $46.24 $17.18 $63.42Annual Costs per Machine $85.88 $30.32




34

Appendix C: Figure 5 - Compressor Control Analysis

Compressor Control

Cost of Compressor Control $125.00

Percentage Saved from Method 30%

Coke Machines NextGen Machines Number of MachinesNewton Campus 5Newton Campus Retrofitted 12Brighton Campus 5Brighton without Retrofitted 4Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus 29Chestnut Hill (Main) Campus Retrofitted 85 6

Total Regular Machines 0 39Total Retrofitted Machines 101 6Total number 101 45

KilowattsRegular MachinesInitial watts 107 35Ending watts 110 41Average watts 108.5 38kilowatts 0.1085 0.038

Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 0 0.38Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 0 1.14Total kilowatts 0 1.52

Retrofitted MachinesInitial watts 75.95 43Ending watts 75.95 44Average watts 75.95 43.5kilowatts 0.07595 0.0435

Total kilowatts (Newton and Brighton) 1.2152 0Total kilowatts (Main Campus) 6.45575 0.261Total kilowatts 7.67095 0.261




35



24 $25.59 $5.99

Month 720 $767.76 $179.59

Yearly 8760 $9,341.12 $2,185.06 $11,526.18


Annual Savings per Machine $39.64Annual Costs per Machine $92.49

Total Cost $12,625.00

Payback Amount 3.15

Annual CO2 Usage (tons) 88.60

Annual C02 Savings (tons) 30.81


36

Appendix D: Results Appendix D: Table 1 - Comparison of Non-ENERGY STAR machines to ENERGY STAR machines Coke Next Generation Total Machines Percentage Non-ENERGY STAR 31 45 76 52% ENERGY STAR 70 0 70 48% Total 101 45 146 100%

Appendix D: Figure 1 - Percentage of ENERGY STAR machines as opposed to Non-ENERGY STAR Appendix D: Table 2 - Energy Cost data for the base case broken down into daily, monthly and yearly costs.

Non-‐ENERGY STAR

ENERGY STAR

Cost per Time Period Coke Next Generation Day

24 $36.56 $5.99 $42.55 Month

720 $1,096.80 $179.59 $1,276.40 Yearly

8760 $13,344.46 $2,185.06 $15,529.52

37

Appendix D: Figure 2 - Energy cost savings per machine with the implementation of Vending Miser Devices on ENERGY STAR machines versus non-ENERGY STAR machines

$132.12

$107.02

$71.35

$47.50 $38.48

$25.65

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

Base Case ENERGY STAR Non-‐ENERGY STAR

Coke Machines

NextGen Machines

38

Appendix D: Figure 3 - The total energy costs of the vending machines in the base case and retrofitting options.

Appendix D: Figure 4 - Total annual carbon dioxide emissions emitted for the base case and each retrofitting option

$15,529 $15,490

$11,420 $10,069

$11,526

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000

$10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000

Base Case NextGen/LED Vending Miser Delamping Compressor Control

Next Generation

Coke

119.41 119.10

87.95 77.42 88.59

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

100.00 120.00 140.00


Next Generation

Coke

39

Appendix D: Table 3 - Savings data for each retrofitting strategy broken down by machine type and then by individual machines Total Savings by Machine Type Savings per Machine

Annual Savings Coke Next Generation Coke Next Generation

Base Case NextGen/LED $39.31 - $39.31 - $6.55 Vending Miser $4,109.39 $3,661.26 $448.14 $36.25 $9.74 De-lamping $5,460.89 $4,670.56 $790.33 $46.24 $17.18 Compressor Control $4,003.34 $4,003.34 - $39.64 -

Appendix D: Figure 5: Total energy costs per vending machine in the base case and retrofitting options.

$132.12 $132.12

$95.87 $85.88

$92.49

$47.50 $46.65 $37.76 $30.32

$47.50

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00


Coke

Next Generation

boston college vending machine energy audit project report

Documents