printer friendly version

Green thermals

Implementing thermal cameras on your perimeter is more energy efficient and cost effective in the long run.

'Going Green' is a phrase referring to actions that a person can consciously take to curb harmful effects on the environment through consumer habits, behaviour, and lifestyle. In essence, actions taken to reduce one’s carbon footprint thereby preserving the Earth’s natural resources. Besides the positive impact on the environment, reducing your carbon footprint can have a very positive effect on your bank balance.

C3 Shared Services specialises in intelligent perimeter security solutions with the emphasis on the implementation of thermal cameras combined with intelligent video analytics. The combination of these two technologies allows for instant visual verification as to the exact location and cause of any perimeter breach in total darkness. C3 has implemented this technology at numerous sites in South Africa, such as Xanadu Eco Park, Southdown’s Estate, in the mining sector, national key points, correctional facilities, etc, with great success.

How is this related to going green and putting rands back in pockets? Looking at the environmental and the financial advantages of implementing thermal cameras on your perimeter as opposed to conventional CCD cameras.

As you can see from the table, the CCD plus IR illuminator combination uses 58% more kilowatt hours than the thermal camera. This will directly relate to a 58% saving in electrical costs should the thermal camera option be implemented as opposed to the CCD option. Now let us look at the savings, both electrical and financial, using a 4 km perimeter as an example.

Option 1: Implementing thermal cameras on a 4 km perimeter

Thermal cameras, with a clear line of sight, can cover 400 m in total darkness (using various lenses can of course increase this figure) with an overlap of 50 m between cameras. In order to secure a 4 km perimeter you would need 10 thermal cameras. Thermal cameras require no additional lighting when combined with analytics in order to detect and track intruders.

Option 2: Implementing CCD cameras with IR Illuminators on a 4 km perimeter

CCD cameras cover about 60 m which is the acceptable standard when combined with intelligent video analytics. Of course, CCD cameras need help in order to see intruders at night and for this reason they are often combined with infrared illuminators. So, over a 4 km perimeter you would need approximately 60 CCD cameras plus 60 infrared illuminators. Let us look at the table which highlights the electrical consumption between the two scenarios:

As you can clearly see from the table, thermal cameras are far more energy efficient and therefore cheaper to run than the CCD IR illumination combination. The annual electricity costs to secure a 4 km perimeter using the CCD and IR illuminator combination is a whopping R18 266,69 compared to the thermal camera option of only R1178,50.

For every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity saved means one less kilogram of carbon dioxide generated by a power station and released into the atmosphere?

“Thermal cameras offer numerous advantages over conventional CCD cameras,” says Brendon Cowley, sales director of C3, “not only is the technology far superior making them more efficient at detecting intrusions with less false alarms, but they are also cheaper to maintain on a monthly basis as the cameras require no cleaning of lenses, high maintenance costs, lower electrical consumption, etc”

Cowley also adds that, “the initial set-up costs can be considerably lower when compared to CCD cameras as the amount of thermal cameras required is so much less. Per camera, they cost more, but you need so few of them over long distances that in many cases they can work out cheaper with the initial set-up”.

Share this article:

Further reading: