Promoting opportunities in this way works well – in the past, we had more than 800 people attending a free educational event!
I really appreciate you taking the time, without a big readership this entire series would not be possible!
Now, without further ado, let’s address a crucial topic that often lacks clear information:
What actually reduces energy consumption in your equipment—and how to implement it safely?
Today's Lesson: Reducing Energy Consumption
Understanding how to handle equipment differently
Number Of The Day
The PCR Mastercycler X50s requires 113.4 Wh per run. When the PCR run is over, it holds the temperature at 4°C, using 68 Wh per hour. Switching this temperature to +10°C can save approximately 48% of energy, as the cycler only needs 35 Wh per hour at this temperature. Notably, if the holding temperature is set to room temperature, it consumes just 11.8 Wh per hour.
48
Saving On Energy Consumption
Concrete information about the energy consumption of lab equipment is often missing.
And since electricity is often not considered a strongly limited resource, more advanced strategies beyond general tips on saving energy are rarely developed.
Certainly worth reading, containing previously unpublished data and outlinding safe & impactful solutions for you
This is why I teamed up with Eppendorf, writing a white paper with them. Based on the proprietary data they shared, there are some interesting lessons I thought I got to share with you:
The Challenge of Saving Energy
The difficulty in saving energy lies in the fact that you have to consider various processes to understand where savings are possible:
Energy consumption depends on multiple overlapping systems—cooling, heating, spinning, vacuum generation, and more.
Centrifuges are a perfect example.
Eppendorf’s microcentrifuge 5427 R (with a 30-place rotor) has the following consumption:
Cooling from room temp to +4 °C: 60 Wh
20 min spin at 20,000 × g at 4 °C: 130 Wh
Whereas their tabletop centrifuge 5910 Ri (with 6 × 50 mL rotor) uses:
Cooling from room temp to +4 °C: 1,000 Wh
60 min spin at 15,000 × g at 4 °C: 640 Wh
Therefor, saving energy could mean batching runs to avoid repeated cooling. But what about changing the spin? Yes, it will—but consider two things:
Initial acceleration uses more energy than maintaining the spin.
Not affecting your sample quality is the top priority.
So, instead of shortening spin steps or spinning at half g for 4x the time, it may be more effective to switch to a smaller centrifuge.
(How to reduce spinning times safely is something I share in our free Slack)
An Overlooked Option for Saving Energy
Eppendorf invested time and effort to measure the savings when turning freezers to -70 °C.
The data are based on Eppendorf-external tests with 3 empty units (230 V) in parallel and 20 °C room temperature.
They also explored how much energy can be saved by adjusting the holding temperature of their PCR cyclers. Setting it from +4 °C to +10 °C saves between 30–50%, depending on the model.
Please note that holding temperatures were set to +4°C. The 14h are my estimation of finishing the PCR at 6PM and turning it off at 8AM. This data was acquired for the PCR Mastercycler X40.
But have you ever considered how much energy your dry oven or cell incubator uses?
Take the CellXpert® C170i incubator:
Maintaining 37 °C: 37 Wh/h
Heat sterilization cycle: 3250 W
Steady use over a year (assuming minimal door opening) this equates to ~324 kWh, roughly as much as a small household.
For comparison, the witeg SmartLab SWOF dry oven consumes:
Maintaining 100°C: 187 Wh/h
Maintaining 150°C: 337 Wh/h
Still, we can use that equipment more sustainably by:
Limiting door openings
Regularly checking and cleaning seals
Choosing units with segmented doors to reduce heat loss and power demand
For incubators: Working cleanly to avoid excessive sterilization cycles—but not avoiding them altogether, as contamination is far more costly
An incubator with multiple segments, unfortunately though, I have only seen large upright drying ovens with segmentation… Let me know if you know about smaller ones with that feature.
Applying The Knowledge
We often focus on plastic waste because it’s visible.
In contrast, invisible energy consumption is often overlooked as a major contributor to lab carbon footprints—even though it can offer bigger opportunities for savings.
Therefore, measuring and sharing relatable comparisons is key to convincing colleagues to change.
The type on the left is the most common for laboratories. Of note, there are several other types such as DIN-Rail Smart Meters or Hardwired Units but those are for permanent installation. Of course, also plug-only types exist that send data to a phone app. Here is the link for the one on the right.
While instruments like MS or NMR machines can’t be turned off, you can often change settings—such as enabling sleep mode on your computer.
For devices like heating blocks, manual adjustment is possible.
For instance, the Eppendorf ThermoMixer® C consumes 110Wh/h at 65°C even when not in use.
If colleagues aren’t willing to turn it off, you might still convince them to reduce idle temperatures. (More on non-linear energy savings in our Slack)
Upcoming Lesson:
How Sustainability Data Is Evolving
How We Feel Today
If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email. Otherwise, wish you a beatiful week! See you again the 22nd : )
Edited by Patrick Penndorf Connection@ReAdvance.com Lutherstraße 159, 07743, Jena, Thuringia, Germany Data Protection & Impressum If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hello Reader, how many tips do you think the average scientist uses each week? As outlined in a previous publication, it can be quite simple to reduce up to 65% of the plastic waste generated in experiments—even under sterile conditions. Today, we will dive deeper into how we can reduce plastic waste in a rather unique way. In other words, it’s not just about the tips themselves, but also about what surrounds them. Today's Lesson: Pipette Tip Refill...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hello Reader, this is a short message to follow up on the last Sustainability Snack lesson you received. I want to talk about a nuance because I made a mistake that might have caused some confusion: Focusing Take-back Program Impacts In the previous piece wrote towards the end: Downcycling with 5 km by small truck adds 1550 g CO2e/kg plastic waste. However, this sentence contains a mistake. It should read: Downcycling with 5 km by small truck adds 1550 g...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hi Reader, hope you are ready for today's lesson. Last week, we talked about take-back programs – what they are and how they work. However, one is tempted to assume that just because they “recycle” waste, they must be more sustainable. Today, we’ll try to find out whether that’s actually true. To be frank, we might break a few hearts along the way… But before we dive into any calculations, let’s go over some basics. Today's Lesson: Discussing take-back...
