Security and the Environment

Transcription

1 WHITE PAPER Security and the Environment Applying Sustainability to Outdoor Surveillance 2015 MicroPower Technologies, Inc.

2 Introduction Sustainability is a demanding initiative for today s enterprises. Organizations are increasingly looking at how they can be more environmentally conscious and less disruptive to the ecosystem. Organizations seek to implement green practices in all aspects of their daily operations to meet these goals. There is a clear trend toward addressing sustainability issues proactively and globally, and security, surveillance and operations departments are expected to contribute to the actions. This white paper will look specifically at how one aspect of security and operations the design and use of outdoor and perimeter video surveillance can benefit from renewable energy, and save operational costs. First, we will look at the historic challenges of sustainability related to external perimeter video surveillance. Then, we will examine how to measure and assess the impact of those challenges. Considering how sustainability can be improved, we will focus on quantifying the improvement. Finally, we will look at what the findings suggest about establishing parameters to continuously improve sustainability related to security. These steps define, measure, assess, improve and control (DMAIC) reflect the data-driven improvement cycle commonly used in Six Sigma programs. These parameters provide a perfect framework to implement sustainability initiatives and accurately measure their impact. Applying them to outdoor and perimeter video surveillance platforms can illustrate how sustainability initiatives in general can have a significant and quantifiable impact throughout a security organization. Define What Is the Problem? Higher costs are a reflection of the greater sustainability challenges of outdoor and perimeter video surveillance. However, it is clear, that the far-reaching corners of an outdoor area, or a remote unprotected and unoccupied site, represent acute risks to an organization. Therefore, monitoring these types of areas cannot be ignored. Compared to the rest of an enterprise surveillance system, the portion that covers the outside perimeter is the most expensive on a cost-per-camera basis. There are various factors that impact costs including the greater distance away that cameras must be located, the greater amount of materials (cables, infrastructure, etc.) needed, significant installation labor resources, and the costs of disrupting hard-surface materials (such as asphalt or concrete) necessary to trench for cables. In terms of sustainability, longer cables and conduit translate into more materials being used, and trenching through concrete, aggregate or asphalt negatively impacts drainage, erosion and waste materials. It s easy to extrapolate from greater installation costs the likely sustainability impact. The fuel consumption of (and emissions from) a backhoe for trenching impacts the environment, as do multiple service vehicles trips during trenching and installation. Additional materials such as asphalt, concrete 1

3 and aggregate are also needed to repair the trenched area. Extra time and resources require permitting, including awaiting approvals. (There is also the added cost of the continuing risk and the ineffective investigations likely to occur while the system is being installed.) In terms of technology costs, multi-megapixel and/or premium-priced, pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras mounted on a building to view distant areas are more expensive than standard-resolution cameras mounted nearer the actual area at risk. These aforementioned options also require enclosures with power hungry heater/ blower options. There is also the potential added cost (and impact on sustainability) of installing supplemental lighting to illuminate a perimeter versus taking advantage of available light. Ongoing operational costs can also reflect a long-term impact on sustainability. These additional costs include the electricity used per camera, electricity used by heater/blowers and the cost of powering incremental lighting. As we will detail, the use of additional electrical power for the camera alone can translate directly to an impact on sustainability. Finally, there is the cost of using guard service labor inefficiently (i.e., missing out on the lower costs associated with a labor-saving video surveillance system, and the quality and ability to gather valuable video data for investigations.) Sustainability related to the management of guard service labor might include the impact of multiple wasted trips to investigate false alarms. Measure How Can We Measure Our Success? Online resources are abundant today, which outline the impact on sustainability into actual numbers. The Environmental Protection Agency offers an online calculator that translates the number of kilowatts of electricity used into the actual impact on greenhouse gases. One aspect of measuring sustainability impact can therefore roughly translate into measuring electrical power savings. Let s look at how one might measure the difference in electricity consumption related to the ongoing use of two kinds of systems one a standard video system connected by cabling and using trenches, and the other a MicroPower solar-powered, wireless camera solution. MicroPower cameras are powered by solar energy and include a lithium ion battery for long-term reliability. There is zero electricity consumed by the camera, compared to an average of about 5-9 watts of electricity consumed by a standard outdoor camera. When an industry standard outdoor surveillance camera requires a heater/blower to address temperature extremes, the heater/blower typically requires an additional 12 watts of power. Deploying an outdoor camera with IR capability to address low-light conditions adds an additional six watts of power. However, the MicroPower system is designed and engineered to transfer some of the camera s power hungry components and associated energy consumption to the network hub, which consumes 12 watts when connected to four cameras. In a basic comparison, therefore, each of the four 2

4 cameras connected to each network hub consumes an average of three watts (12 watts divided by 4), compared to an average of seven watts for the standard outdoor camera, a nearly 43-percent reduction in power usage. Here s an example of 12-camera system, implemented as a standard outdoor system using cabling, trenching and electricity to each camera versus a 12-camera system using MicroPower s solarpowered cameras, where neither heater/blower nor IR are required for environmental control or lowlight conditions. Power consumption (using a 2014 U.S. average cost of 0.12/Kw) can be estimated for more than one year and for a typically amortized asset, five years. Note that each group of four MicroPower cameras connect to a hub that uses 12 watts of power. Consumption Power Consumption Total Power Power Cost 5 Yrs Consumption/Yr Standard cameras (12) 84 Watts $88.30 $ MicroPower hubs (3) 36 Watts $37.84 $ The average electricity cost savings using the MicroPower system would be 42.8 percent per year, or a total of $ over five years. For a larger organization with 10 times as many cameras, the savings over five years would be $2, However, for most outdoor installations, the addition of a heater/blower would be another 12 watts for the standard camera. The MicroPower camera does not contain the sensitive components requiring a heater/blower. Rather, it has a temperature operating range of -40 F (-40 C), and 122 F (50 C). That changes the math dramatically. Consumption Power Consumption Total Power Power Cost 5 Yrs Consumption/Yr Standard cameras with 228 Watts $ $ heater/blower (12) MicroPower hubs (3) 36 Watts $37.84 $ In a scenario of cameras requiring heater/blowers, the electricity consumption of a 12-camera MicroPower system would therefore be a savings of greater than 84 percent $1, less over five years (or $10, less over five years for a larger organization with 120 cameras). 3

5 Outdoor surveillance requirements include the need to address available light, and built-in IR (infrared) is typically the default specification. Adding the power requirements for this feature, which is typically six additional watts of power (for a total of 25 watts per industry average), the equation becomes the following: Consumption Power Consumption Total Power Power Cost 5 Yrs Consumption/Yr Standard cameras with 300 Watts $ $ heater/blower (12) MicroPower hubs (3) 36 Watts $37.84 $ In this case, operating 12 MicroPower cameras and hubs vs. 12 conventional IP cameras with heater/ blower and IR capability, would save 88 percent in electricity costs, a savings of $1, over five years, or $13, savings with a 120-camera system. These comparisons will vary by rates determined by utility companies*, but give an idea of the electricity costs (and consequent sustainability impact) of a MicroPower system versus a standard outdoor surveillance system. Additional variables include the electricity consumption of a network video recorder, switches and other devices. However, a conservative estimate is that a MicroPower surveillance solution can lower electricity power consumption and related costs between 42.8 percent and 88 percent. Measuring the impact of the two different systems during installation can be quantified with regard to the upfront capital cost of installation. EPA tools calculate the environmental impact of additional transportation needed for a more complicated installation. In the case of a traditional, four-camera system, an additional two or three weeks of installation time using heavy equipment would be needed, in addition to the costs of service vehicles shuttling to and from the job site. One can determine the daily fuel consumption of a backhoe, and how much fuel is used by an installers truck traveling 100 miles per day. For example, fuel consumption calculated at 12 miles per gallon equals 8.3 gallons of fuel used per day. Cost overruns can occur (and require additional fuel usage) in cases when trenching involves an inadvertent strike of existing services, for example, which can add to the days of truck shuttling (and resulting fuel costs and sustainability impact). Finally, other environmental impacts should be considered and quantified if possible. Examples include the costs of materials disposal, possible disruption to existing services, possible hazardous waste runoff, potential creation of erosion problems, and issues of dust, debris and air contamination. *The average cost in the UK for electricity in US Dollars in 2014 was.20 Kw/hour, or 40% greater than the above calculations. The average cost in Hawaii for electricity in US Dollars in 2014 was.42 kw/hour, or 350% greater than the above calculations. 4

6 Assess How Can We Evaluate Our Measurements? Translating vaguely stated environmental benefits into quantifiable and measurable numbers enables evaluation of the sustainability impact of one type of system versus another. The use of a renewable energy source (i.e., solar) provides sustainability benefits that extend throughout the life of the system. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists the following as benefits of using renewable energy sources: Generating energy that produces no greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and reduces types of air pollution Diversifying the energy supply and reducing dependence on imported fuels Creating economic development and jobs in manufacturing, installation and more Using less materials also provides benefits. Wireless systems avoid installation costs and also the costs of the additional materials, such as wire and cabling, that would otherwise be used. The impact of using those materials (and sustainability benefit of avoiding their use) should also contribute to any sustainability assessment of a system. Improve How Can We Take Advantage of What We Assessed Incrementally and Continuously? This same quantitative approach to sustainability can be applied to other security systems throughout an operation. Security is obligated to do its part for sustainability as an enterprise will require sustainability plans and savings across all departments. Seeking to contribute to the enterprise s global sustainability initiative, however, security departments can and will do more than embrace paperless processes or the use of bike patrols. The security department s impact on sustainability can include the suppliers they choose, how they minimize material usage and how they plan disposal of technology at end-of-life. And for instance, the rapid deployment and re-deployment of integrated, solar and wireless surveillance cameras such as the MicroPower solution also saves materials, redundant and underutilized cameras. Control How Can We Establish Parameters to Control Continuous Improvement? Benchmarking is a helpful tool to drive incremental and continuous improvement. ENERGY STAR, a voluntary U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program, outlines a scale to allow facilities to see how they stack up against similar facilities across the nation on a score of 1 to 100. The program is available for more than 25 types of facilities. An ENERGY STAR score indicates how a plant is 5

7 performing against peer facilities nationwide. For example, a score of 50 is typical, while a 30 means a plant is only more efficient than 30 percent of peer facilities. A score of 75 or higher is eligible for ENERGY STAR certification. Another tool to improve sustainability is to use products rated by ENERGY STAR, a trusted, government-backed symbol for energy efficiency. The ENERGY STAR label was established to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants caused by the inefficient use of energy. There are other such designations in a variety of product categories, too. Sustainability labeling programs include Green Seal and EcoLogo. Another resource to help buyers judge the environmental impact of products, such as computers, is EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool), an easy-to-use resource for identifying high-performance, environmentally preferable products. Hundreds of businesses, schools, hotels, hospitals, governments and other end-user customers use EPEAT to help them make informed purchasing decisions. These and other resources can help guide security organizations to expand their contributions to sustainability and encompass other areas of operation in addition to video at the perimeter. Raising the Bar on Sustainability Video at the perimeter and at remote/unoccupied sites is just one element involved in the security and operations of an organization, although it also represents an opportunity to have an immediate positive impact on sustainability. A MicroPower solar-powered wireless camera system can have a specific, measurable effect on sustainability that sets a high bar to be emulated throughout an organization. 6