Safe Successful and Sustainable Laboratories Peter James and
Safe, Successful and Sustainable Laboratories Peter James and Lisa Hopkinson S-Lab, University of Bradford, UK www. goodcampus. org
The S-Lab Successful Safe Sustainable
Lab Impacts Energy - c £ 150 million pa - 40 -70% HVAC - 20 -40% Equipment v Water v Chemicals/supplies v Waste – much hazardous v Space v
Lab Energy - Bioscience Liverpool, Biosciences York, Biology Edinburgh, Cancer Research. excl. autoclave
Energy Costs - Biosciences Liverpool, Biosciences York, Biology Edinburgh, Cancer Research, excl. autoclave
Lab Energy - Chemistry Manchester Cambridge, excl. Server rooms
Energy Costs - Chemistry Manchester Cambridge excl. Server rooms
Laboratory Energy Opportunities Fabric & lighting (LED) Wider operating parameters Efficient/modular equipment Low flow/alternative containment Demand responsiveness Free cooling/heating Supply Voltage optimisation/reduction High efficiency transformers High efficiency back up Zero/low carbon sources Thermal recovery/storage Building & Services Design & Management High efficiency equipment Eqt consolidation/sharing Lay out & zoning Storage policies/actions Central services Space efficient/natural write up Activities Good understanding Effective maintenance Monitoring/recommissioning Right sizing Energy awareness/incentives
Case 6 - Nottingham Fume Cupboards v Linking 380 VAV controls to BMS v Converting average sash heights to notional savings compared to 365/7/24 v Feedback to labs + awareness campaign - Stickers on FC - Posters in Labs - User awareness/training - Postgraduate LAB Champions Network v 10% reduction in use, saving at least £ 62, 700, 1. 9 million k. Wh of energy and 520 tonnes of CO 2 per annum
Case 2 – Better Chemical Management, Edinburgh v Tracking all chemicals through barcoded containers v Users see in-house inventory when ordering v £ 100, 000 first year savings of chemical purchasing costs v £ 12, 000/year savings of management/disposal costs v Fast access to chemicals v Regular chemical audits v Sci. Quest e-procurement links Derek Burgess, Procurement Manager
Case 5 – Replacing Freezers at Newcastle v £ 725 litre freezer energy - 6, 000– 21, 000 k. Wh/y v £ 180, 000 of central funding to replace old models v 36 -80 freezers replaced, saving 131, 000 k. Wh v 7 years, at 9. 5 p per k. Wh v Reduced space, more reliable v More £ for research Clare Rogers, Director Estates Support Services
Case 4 – Improved Sample Tracking, Queen Mary v Blizard Institute Cell & Molecular Science v Combined 8 research centres, 40 liquid nitrogen dewars into centralised store v Barcode tracking & standardised containers v 50% fewer samples v Easier sample retrieval v Less degradation risk v Human Tissues Act compliance easier
Lab Assessment • Self-assessment tool for lab users (and estates) • Inspired by work of Lab. RATS • Building (high level) and Lab Specific Assessment templates • Lab specific assessment – 30 criteria in 9 categories • Evidence of compliance • Best practice guidance • 2 -3 hrs per lab
- Slides: 14