USE OF COMPUTER ROOM HEAT TO WARM THE DOMESTIC WATER
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
Release Decision:
RIPPUB
Original Classification:
K
Document Page Count:
10
Document Creation Date:
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date:
October 21, 2008
Sequence Number:
41
Case Number:
Publication Date:
March 25, 1980
Content Type:
MF
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9.pdf | 545.58 KB |
Body:
STAT
'f
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
') 4P 49
6;41 Z.~
MEMORANDUIvI FOR: Deputy Chief, Real Estate f, Construction
~DC
Division, OL -11
RECD/OL
SUBJECT: Use of Computer Room Heat to Warm the
Domestic Water
Chief) Headquarters Engineering Branch
REFERENCE: Memo ODP-0-127, 30 Jan 80, subj as above
1. The heat given off by the various computer and
communications systems is presently removed from those
systems by air handlers served by chilled water which is
produced in the Powerplant about a thousand feet west of
the;-headquarters Building. Lssentually the computer heat
is transferred to the air in the computer room which in
turn is transferred to the chilled water system, raising
the chilled water from approximately 45?F to about 55?F.
The chilled water is then pumped to the Powerplant to a
chiller where the heat is transferred to an evaporative
cooling tower for a discharge to the atmosphere. In this
entire cycle, the only "warm" medium is the water circulated
from the chiller to the evaporative cooling tower at the
Powerplant. And this water only reaches a temperature range
of 85?F to 90?F.
2. The domestic hot water in the Headquarters Building
is generated by taking part of the main water supply to the
building and heating it using steam heat exchangers. The
heat exchangers are located in mechanical equipment areas
with each exchanger servicing a particular part of the
building.
3. Under this design arrangement the heat removed from
the computer rooms does not become concentrated in any amount
that would be considered "warm" until it reaches the Power-
plant and at that point it is too far away to be useable to
warm part of the main water supply.
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
-R Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
40 ?
SUBJECT: Use of Computer Room Heat to Warm the
Domestic: Water
4. Two more factors should also be discussed. First,
the only consideration I am aware of that would alter the
present boiler operation plan of continuous service is
the preliminary examination of a project to install small
"summer" boilers to serve the Headquarters cafeteria and
Printing and Photography Building and to install electric
hot water heaters for scattered photo processors, medical
services, and similar requirements. The goal of this project
would be to supply the small minimum hot water requirements
while allowing the large boilers in the Powerplant to be
secured. This would be seasonal for possibly to period of
July through August. No energy would be used. to heat general
domestic water under this plan during the July - August period
S. Second, during the summer the domestic water temp-
erature tends to rise naturally into the low to middle 70's
which is not hot but is possibly acceptable for rest room
rooth purposes.
STAT
STAT
STAT
to understand our present system and
encourage them to continue to look for ways to save energy.
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
0 ?
I
STAT
MEMORANDUM FOR: Joe Hart, ES/SAAC
FROM:
Chief, Plans and Program Staff
SUBJECT: Employee Suggestion No. 80-211
Energy Conservation (Window Shutters)
1. The suggestion accurately points out that the
Headquarters building, similar to virtually all buildings
in the U.S., was designed and constructed during times when
energy conservation did not command the urgency it does today.
Energy is now expensive, both economically and politically,
and the-nation is now struggling to establish control on
the expenditure-of energy. Applicable to the suggestion,
the DOE and the GSA, in cooperation with this Agency, are
analysing the alternatives to retrofit our buildings to best
achieve energy saving objectives.
2. The Headquarters building is under GSA control.
The GSA is responsible to the DOE to achieve energy saving ?
goals through improved operating procedures and through the-
capital expenditure for energy efficient equipment. Our
Agency is responsible to insure our support requirements
consider the need to conserve, and we are responsible to
cooperate with the GSA in identifying and implementing
policies, procedures and ideas. The DOE, the GSA and the
Agency have been active over several years in the energy
area, there are numerous committees, a plethora of ideas,
and energy saving options literally inundate the resources
available for study and implementation. The DOE publishes
hundreds of options for consideration, and requires the
GSA to perform an energy audit of buildings. The audit
is to form the foundation fo'r the systematic implementation
of prioritized energy saving projects, as the audit identifies
costs, energy savings and payback periods for each option.
This audit has been done, and has included the following
specifics for windows:
OL 0 1241a
`~' Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
00 10
'SUBJECT: Employee Suggestion No. 80-211
Energy Conservation (Window Shutters)
a. Double glazing
b. Triple glazing
c. Solar films on windows
d. Blinds, drapes, shades, louvers and screens
In analyzing the above options, the following was recommended
by the consultant: "Whichever option is chosen for window
treatment should not depend on individual control for the
energy savings to be realized." It should be noted that
significant savings could now be realized if individual
occupants could be depended on to use the blinds and curtains
presently installed to conserve energy. In installations
where draperies are automated, individuals tend to override
the controls in order to meet their own needs, similar to
the constant attempt to adjust thermostats in the Headquarters
building to meet individual temperature preferences.
3. The GSA and engineers from RECD/0L are working
together in analysing the audit report while concurrently
implementing projects achievable with existing resources;
therefore, the consultant's recommendation concerning the
dependency on occupants to save energy is under review.
4. The above narrative is presented as background
information, primarily to identify that the energy conser-
vation field is dynamic with ideas everywhere, and that the
challenge is to systematically and competetively rank
options and thereby institute a program consistent with '-f
national goals and internal resources. The narrative is also
presented to indicate that the concept of shutters was con-
sidered, but not in detail because they depended on the
cooperation of the individual occupants of windowed rooms.
Shutters may be chronologically premature in that there is
not yet universal agreement on the depth and severity of the
energy crisis, whether the crisis is real or political, and
there is no agreement as to what degree of "bleeding" is fair
and necessary. Experience has been that people are not
terribly cooperative on voluntary inconve.niencies. In any
event, the energy audit did identify numerous energy saving
projects with higher priority for our limited capabilities
(resources) than window glazing, films, blinds, drapes,
shades, louvers and screens, although some window modification
will eventually be accomplished. FYI, given the revised
operating procedures of lower wintertime building temperatures,
higher summertime temperatures, securing perimeter units at
night and better heating, ventilating and air conditioning
control, the consultant identified relatively long pay back
periods for window attention, other than caulking.
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
0 0
SUBJECT: Employee Suggestion No. 80-211
Energy Conservation (Window Shutters)
5. The above suggests it would be most difficult to
evaluate the suggestion on the basis of tangible savings
because it is but one option among hundreds, its premise
has been rejected because effectiveness is dependent on
the cooperation of room occupants, and the suggestion is
not competetive with other options immediately competing
for our limited resources. Analysis of the specifics of
the suggestion clearly lead to a recommendation to decline
because of the following:
a. The construction as identified in the suggestion
could not be approved by the OS because fiberglass/'
Styrofoam represents a fire/safety hazzard.
b. Achieving an air tight seal would be considerably
more difficult and expensive than implied in the suggestion.
c. Aesthetics would be controversial, also achieving
the cooperation of personnel to close the shutters could
be a problem.
d. The shutters would protrude into the room,
assuming the blinds would remain and the curtains re-
moved (blinds necessary for summertime reflection of
sunlight to reduce heat gains). However, safes and
furniture cover a portion of a high percentage of the.,,,'
windows, precluding the full opening of the shutters..
It is anticipated shutters would be damaged by hitting
safe edges, etc. Maintenance costs are difficult to
estimate, but experience would demand that the shutters
be fabricated and installed to be extremely durable,
or damage and maintenance costs will be high.
6. With elevated summertime building temperatures and
the nighttime securing of our perimeter systems and select
air conditioning systems, summertime savings through use of
the shutters would not be significant and., on balance, may even
be negative -- re, the shut;ers may prevent some building heat
from escaping to the cooler nig1 'time outside air. It may be
noted that 80% of the sun's heat load is via radiation trans-
mitted directly through the glass to the interior; therefore,
significant summertime savings could be-achieved by keeping
the shutters closed when the sun is out, but it is doubtful
that our personnel would be willing to voluntarily transform
their windowed offices into)in essence, an interipr room via
closing the shutters.
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
STAT
',s' Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
?
SUBJECT: Employee Suggestion No. 80-211
Energy Conservation (Window Shutters)
7. In summary, the design and custom manufacture and
installation of a durable, efficient and safe shutter would.
be considerably more difficult and expensive than identified
in the suggestion (additionally, manufacturer and installation
would be via GSA contract, with attendant overhead charges).
The installation would be aesthetically controversial and
energy effectiveness would depend on the cooperation of office
occupants. The costs and 5enefits in competition with other
options to save energy lead to the recommendation that this
suggestion be declined for use in the Headquarters building
at this time. If energy continues to become more scarce
and expensive at the present rate, and if requirements to
reduce energy consumption by a percentage each year continues,
and as the more effective alternatives become implemented,
then no doubt some form of window treatment will be done.
8. The use of shutters over double or triple glazing,
blinds, draperies, etc., would depend on the attitude of our
personnel at that time, their cooperativeness, and the
relative costs involved. The time for shutters as a retrofit
option has not yet come, but may be here in the future.
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
IR ..
EY
lIl1 UUW JI UL u' J
Energy' Conservation at qs and of er CIA Federal Bldgs
?1RESENT METHOD
See Attachment
See Attachment
A)VANTAGES
See Attachment
ror" 44 USE PREVIOUS
f3, ? EDITIONS
DDCL []RVW
DRV BY
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
UNCLASSI Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
uNILT u LVtaCI~~~/~~ ^ SECRET
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEE"f
SUBJECT: (Optional) Energy Conservation (Window Shutters)
Employee Suggestion No. 80-211
STAT I FROM:
OL 0 1241 a
STAT
r TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
i. James H. McDonald
L
^ SECRET
7 AP
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
0
CONFIDENTIAL ^ IN
USE TI o~LY ^ UNCLASSIFIED
DATE ?.
APR 1Z
30
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
FYI as Energy Chairman,
the attached suggestion
will be filed with other
energy related suggestions
for the next committee
meeting.
I went into considerably
more detail than normal
due to the fact that the
suggestor sent copies
of his suggestion to the
DCI and to Dj/NFAC.
pproved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
? cm
Energy conservation is a key national priority, yet
the CIA headquarters building is a heat sieve designed
and built in the era of cheap and inexhaustible energy.
On the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th floors there are
nearly 3,500 windows, each one of which loses about 2.75
million btu's per heating season, requiring the burning
of 25-28 gallons of heating oil per window per heating
season. About 80 percent of this heat loss is pure waste.
At today's oil prices of roughly $1-/gallon this amounts
to a cost of $20/window/year or $70,000. Since heating
oil prices promise to double in the next 2-3 years,
savings would amount to about $150,000 per year in the
mid 1980s. Summer air conditioning savings would also be
sizeable, perhaps $50,000 to $75,000.
II. The Solution
Because of the large number of identical windows,
it will be possible to mass produce styrofoam insulated
shutters to fit on the inside of each of these windows.
These shutters would not interfere with the operation
of the windows or illumination during working hours, nor
would they intrude on available space within agency
offices. Closing of these shutters could be made a?
portion of the normal daily security check, thus
assuring a 90 percent reduction in heat losses during
the 75 percent of the week that most offices are normally
unoccupied. Since heat losses are much higher at night
than during the day, in part because of radiation losses,
overall savings would average 80 percent or so.
III. The Shutters
These proposed shutters would hinge on each side of
the windows on the inside and open against the concrete
columns alongside each window, much like french or double
doors. Shutter construction would probably call for a
styrofoam core bonded to fibreglass or plastic sheets
(much like high quality ice chests are manufactured)
with weather stripped closures. Design should aim at an
"R" value of 8 to 10 per shutter, implying a core
H''e Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9
x Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9 -
n , n
thickness of about 1 1/2". Based on a competitive bid
order of some 3,500 units, costs should run less than
$50- per unit. Installation costs should not exceed an
additional $50.per unit. A particularly cheap, but less
esthetically pleasing solution could be obtained by using,
lift out styrofoam panels with magnetic catches that would
seal on the window frames. This could probably be done
for as little as $10-$20 per window, with a payback period
of less than one heating season. These lift-out panels
would also be useable on the 2nd and 7th floors.
IV. The Payoff
With annual savings on heat alone of $20-/window
(probably $30-$40/window taking into account air
conditioning savings and the probable rise in fuel costs
during the interim) payback could be obtained in 3 years
or less. Total annual savings would total at least
$100,000 next year in heating costs and more than
$150,000-/year during the 1980s.* Other conservation
investments could be made on the 2nd and the 7th floor
where heat losses through the windows are greater even
than on the other floors. Again, insulated shutters of
some kind probably offer the best solution. Double
glazing would be more expensive and would save only about
50 percent at best, compared to the 80 percent or so
available from shutters. As for the cafeteria, which is an
energy disgrace, no solution suggests itself. For your
information, it probably takes more energy to heat this
area than it does for the entire rest of the headquarters
complex.
Approved For Release 2009/01/06: CIA-RDP85-00988R000500040041-9