Societal Scale Modeling: Quantifying the Technology and Policies Needed for Global Zero-Carbon-Emission Building Infrastructure

Transcription

1 Societal Scale Modeling: Quantifying the Technology and Policies Needed for Global Zero-Carbon-Emission Building Infrastructure Kevin Otto President Robust Systems and Strategy LLC Your source for strategic and reliable technology development expertise

2 Robust Systems and Strategy We are a research and development consultancy Provide services from market planning to reliability design in support of new products & services Formed out of MIT s Center for Innovation in Product Development 2

3 recognized* as the voice of business leadership on sustainable development *GlobeScan Report 3

4 Why Buildings? Other 3% Transport 26% 38% Buildings 33% Industry Potential Energy Savings in Buildings is 25% of Global Energy Usage. Today, Transport Energy Totals 26% of Global Energy Usage. Source: IEA Worldwide Trends in Energy Use and Efficiency, (2008) 4

5 The Goal Carbon Stabilization Business as Usual 48Gt Reduction Power (38%) Industry (19%) Buildings (17%) Carbon Stabilization Transport (26%) Source: International Energy Agency, WEO 2007 and ETP 2008 Distributed generation in buildings is within the power sector. Overall there is a 75% reduction needed by buildings. What is it going to take?

6 Available Technologies 100 MPG X-Prize Mainstream Winner - seats 4 people - 4 wheel mile range Z2 Net Zero Energy Building - Generates as much energy as it consumes - Geothermal heating/cooling - Natural lighting - Photovoltaics 6

7 Energy Efficiency in Buildings Project A world where buildings consume zero net energy Transforming the way buildings are designed, built and used Focus on energy Business perspective Communicate research findings openly with markets and regulators 7

8 CEO Expectations The goal is the first quantitative look ever at what may be accomplished economically to reduce energy demand and CO 2 We expect a persuasive result. 8

9 EEB Project Facts & Trends Report Qualitative & Quantitative Assessments & Recommendations EEB Transforming the Market Report Transforming the Market 9

10 Low Energy Buildings German Building Energy Ratings US Average Office > 600 kwhr/m 2 Energy Efficient Buildings: < 100 kwhr/m 2 10

11 Climate Adaptive Technologies Technologies rely on interactions with the available climate envelope, ground, air, solar. Natural Ventilation Self Shading Stack Effect Draw Solar Thermal Monitoring 100% Daylighting Transparent PV Energy Recovery Control Rainwater Evap Cooling Slab Floor Cooling CO2 Ventilation Control Underfloor Air Ground Source Cooling Desiccant Dehumidification

12 Deutsche Poste Tower Bonn Germany 1M ft 2, 75 kwhr/m 2 Natural lighting No Fans or Ducts Slab Cooling Façade Preheat & night cool 12

13 Manitoba Hydro Winnipeg Canada 0.7M ft 2, 90 kwhr/m 2 Natural lighting No Fans or Ducts Slab Cooling Façade Preheat & night cool Solar tower exhaust 13

14 ZEO Building Putrajaya Malaysia 40k ft 2, 35 kwhr/m 2 Humidity Isolation Natural lighting Self shading PCM & Slab Cooling Façade Double glazing Photovoltaics 14

15 Sustainable Technology Center Ningbo China 13k ft 2, <100 kwhr/m 2 Natural lighting Self shading Geothermal Slab Cooling Façade Double glazing Photovoltaics onsite 15

16 WBCSD Energy Efficiency in Buildings Project What will it take to transform the building sector to achieve a 75% reduction? Low energy consumption building exist in all climate for all uses What will persuade building owners and stakeholders? Industry actions? Cap and trade? Building codes? Voluntary programs? 16

17 Two Problems The buildings cost more The buildings are complicated 17

18 Global Carbon Abatement Costs Most studies consider cost to society Source: International Energy Agency, ETP

19 Incomplete Answers Most studies consider cost to society $ / ton CO Residential Electronics Residential Lighting Commercial CHP Residential Hot Water Commercial Building Controls Commercial Electronics Commercial LED Lighting Residential Envelope New Construction Commercial CFL Lighting Biofuels Industry CHP Commercial Envelope New Construction Residential Envelope Retrofits Potential Gigatons C0 2 Net Negative Cost Abatement Options Will they be adopted? At what cost? Over what time horizon? How do they interact? Resulting impact? How to incentivize? Source: McKinsey, Dec. 2007; Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How much and at what cost? 19

20 Who Pays and Who Decides Capital investments Energy cost benefits 20

21 Mobilize: the Market Dilemma Today s perception from sector professionals Source: EEB Facts and Trends, August

22 Quantify the Impact of Decisions Macroeconomic and Policy Decision Stakeholder Decisions on Capital Building Stock Changes Energy Consumption and Carbon Emission 22

23 WBCSD Modeling Goal: Model building sector purchasing response to stimulus & carbon impact Leverages existing energy analysis capabilities 10 person-years of development 1-2 Million spreadsheet cells 20,000 formula 23

24 Submarkets Modeled Residential France single family US Southeast single family Japan single family China Beijing Multifamily Swedish Multifamily Office Japan Kanto Midsized US Northeast Large Retail US Supermarkets Brazil Shopping Center 24

25 Construction Alternatives Homes, US, Warm, High CO 2 Grid Set of hundreds of construction alternatives for a building type 25

26 Energy Performance Assessments Whole building energy simulation of each alternative Synergy effects of load reductions on HVAC 26

27 Cost Difference Analysis Skanska cost estimates for all alternatives based in Seattle WA Regional Capital and Labor cost multipliers used to transfer these costs to all other submarkets References: RS Means Construction Cost Data 2008 RS Means Green Building: Planning and Cost Estimating 2008 Skanska data 2008 Lee Saylor Estimating

28 Decision Making Criteria Calculation Costs First Costs Equipment Installation Commissioning Operating Costs Maintenance Re-commissioning Net energy purchases Carbon taxes Value Enhancement Building Value Rent Productivity Health Sales margin (retail) Inventory preservation (retail) Non-Financial Criteria Indoor Environmental Quality Reliability Ease of installation & use Appearance Energy and Atmosphere Materials and resources For each building alternative Evaluate all decision criteria Economic and Non-Economic First Costs Operating Costs and Benefits Non-Financial Measures Comparisons vs Baseline Break even time NPV for a time horizon Non-Financial criteria improvement Value enhancement improvement 28

29 Multi-Stakeholder Decision Simulation Virtual simulation of decision Criteria, weights, filter levels Utility function of decision maker Constraint limits from other stakeholders Decision Maker Rankings Other Stakeholders Filtering Ranking of all Alternatives Decision Maker Weights Stakeholder(s) Thresholds U = w f (x) i i f i ( x) F 29

30 Macro-Economic Influences Exogenous Variables Energy prices Emission factors Growth rates Policy Environment Codes and standards Rebates and incentives Energy and carbon taxes Market information 30

31 Micro-Economics Ratings Decision Factors Costs First Costs Equipment Installation Commissioning Operating Costs Maintenance Re-commissioning Net energy purchases Carbon taxes Value Enhancement Building Value Rent Productivity Health Sales margin (retail) Inventory preservation (retail) Non-Financial Criteria Indoor Environmental Quality Reliability Ease of installation & use Appearance Energy and Atmosphere Materials and resources Decision Structure Factors considered Factor weights/thresholds Evaluation horizon Interest rate Policy Environment Codes and standards Rebates and incentives Energy and carbon taxes Market information Virtual Decision Making Energy prices Emission factors Growth rates Exogenous Variables Overall Rating of all Construction Alternatives (0-100%) 31

32 Building Stock Calculation For any given year, convert utility ranks of each alternative into share of building stock changes Demolished Stock Refurbished Stock New Construction Stock New additions to building stock modeled according to rankings of alternatives Share f = %Rank New Stock 32

33 Adoption Diffusion Model Alternatives with new technologies will not be adopted at levels indicated by economics It will be less, due to market adoption dynamics Market awareness communication Market attractiveness to performance vs risk New technology alternatives are decremented per a rolling Bass adoption model Share f ( t n ) = %Rank New Stock Share(t n+5 ) = Sh(t n ) + α(sh f (t n )-Sh(t n )) + β(sh(t n )/Sh f (t n ))(Sh f (t n )-Sh(t n )) Percent of Final Volume Time 33

34 Summed Segment Climate Impact Revised stock levels summed for site energy Local market distribution efficiency coefficients used to convert to primary energy Local market carbon coefficients used to covert to carbon emission levels Primary Energy & Carbon Emissions Site Energy 34

35 WBCSD Model Architecture Construction Alternatives Operational Behaviors Policy and Macroeconomic Scenarios Exogenous Variables Building Energy Simulation Energy Results Decision Criteria Initialize with reference case Updated Building Stock Levels Iterate year after year Adoption for Each Alternative Outcome Metrics Data Output Carbon, Energy, Market Value, Policy Value Cost Model & Projection Construction Option Data Rank Scores of Each Alternative KEY Input Energy Model Cost Model Decision Model Stock Model Output

36 Building Stock Adoption Building stock levels are an outcome based on simulated capital investment decisions Construction Alternativ ves Class Ref1 Good Insul, Elec. Heat, Central Air, Elec cook, ElecH2O,Tree FG 1, , , , , Ref2 Good Insul, Heat pump, Elec cook, ElecH2O,No Tree E Ref3 Good Insul, Gas Heat, Central Air, Elec cook, ElecH2O,Tree, 10% less E Ref4 Good Insul, Gas Heat, Central Air, Elec cook, GasH2O,Tree E Ref9 Ref5 Okay Insul, Gas Heat, Room units, Gas cook, ElecH2O,Tree, 10% less FG E Ref1 + Imp Wall & Roof Insulation FG Ref1 + Super Wall & Roof Insulation E Ref1 + Improved Window U-Value E Ref1 + Improved Window Glazing E Ref1 + CFL Lighting FG Ref1 + LED Lighting FG Ref1 + High Efficiency Large Appliances FG Ref1 + Improved Space Heating E Ref1 + GTHP Space Heating (Geothermal Heat Pump) FG Ref1 + Improved Cooling FG Ref1 + High Efficiency Cooling FG Ref1 + GTHP Space Cooling (Geothermal Heat Pump) FG Ref1 + HEHW (High Eff Water HEating) FG Ref1 + CO2 HPHW (Water Heating) FG Ref1 + Inductive Heat Cooking FG Ref1 + Solar Thermal FG Ref1 + Imp Env (Improved Envelope) E Ref1 + Super Env (Envelope) CD Ref1 + Imp HVAC (Improved Space Heating & Cooling) E Ref1 + HE HVAC (High Efficiency Space Heating & Cooling) E Ref1 + GTHP HVAC E Ref1 + Int Loads (HE Appliances & Cooking) FG Ref1 + Imp Env + Int Loads + CFL E Ref1 + Imp Env + Int Loads + CFL + HEHW E Ref1 + Imp Env + Int Loads + CFL + CO2 HPHW E

37 Technology Adoption Graphs Adoption of construction options and technologies is an outcome Fenestration Wall Insulation 37

38 Energy and Carbon Billions Millions Small Plug Loads Large Plug Loads ion (kwhr/yr) Site Energy Consumpti Net Carbon Emmission ns (tco2/yr) Water Heating Cooking Lighting Equipment Ventilation Equipment & Distribution Dedicated Dehumidification Space Cooling Equipment & Distribution 10 Space Heating Equipment & Distribution Segment Emmissions (tco2/yr) 38

39 How do you validate a large model? Compare with current condition calculations Verify model components Current costs and cost scaling factors Current levels of consumption Current emissions Current decision making coefficients Otherwise, consider what ifs 39

40 Decision Calculated Adoption Under current macroeconomic conditions, does the computed decision selections match current build stock? 60,000 First + Operating Cost Amortized <Cost ($) 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 + Construction Alternative Calculated to be Adopted Data Current Stock 15,000 10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 $55,000 $60,000 First Cost 40

41 Projection Agreement US SE Single Family Residential US EIA: +48% CO 2 by 2030 A0: +41% CO 2 by Site Energy Consumption (kwhr/yr) Billions Net Carbon Emmissions (tco2/yr) Millions

42 Behavior has additional impact Operational behavior, including maintenance, can impact total energy usage by ± 30% to 50% Higher efficiency buildings more sensitive to operational parameters 42

43 Currently Discussed Policies French Single Family Homes Japan Offices Billions Millions Billions Millions Primary Energy Consumption (kwhr/yr) Net Carbon Emmissions (tco2/yr) Primary Energy Consumption (kwhr/yr) Net Carbon Emmissions (tco2/yr) Biomass Fuel Oil Natural Gas Electricity Baseline Carbon Emissions Scenario Carbon Emissions 43

44 $300/ton Carbon Price French Single Family Homes Japan Offices Net Carbon Emmissions (tco2/yr) Billions Millions Billions Millions Primary Energy Consumption (kwhr/yr) Net Carbon Emmissions (tco2/yr) Primary Energy Consumption (kwhr/yr) Biomass Fuel Oil Natural Gas Electricity Baseline Carbon Emissions Scenario Carbon Emissions 44

45 Net Carbon Emmissions (tco2/yr) Millions Primary Energy Consumption (kwhr/yr) Billions 5X Energy Price French Single Family Homes Net Carbon Emmissions (tco2/yr) Millions Japan Offices Primary Energy Consumption (kwhr/yr) Billions Biomass Fuel Oil Natural Gas Electricity Baseline Carbon Emissions Scenario Carbon Emissions 45

46 5X Energy Price with only Current and NZEB as alternatives French Single Family Homes Japan Offices Billions Millions Billions Millions Primary Energy Consum mption (kwhr/yr) ns (tco2/yr) Net Carbon Emmission Primary Energy Consum mption (kwhr/yr) ns (tco2/yr) Net Carbon Emmission Biomass Fuel Oil Natural Gas Electricity Baseline Carbon Emissions Scenario Carbon Emissions 46

47 Incentives only Given to Class A & B Buildings French Single Family Homes Japan Offices Billions Millions Billions Millions Primary Energy Consum mption (kwhr/yr) ns (tco2/yr) Net Carbon Emmission Primary Energy Consum mption (kwhr/yr) ons (tco2/yr) Net Carbon Emmissio Biomass Fuel Oil Natural Gas Electricity Baseline Carbon Emissions Scenario Carbon Emissions 47

48 Whole Building Codes & Incentives, $30/ton Carbon Price French Single Family Homes Japan Offices Billions Millions Billions Millions Primary Energy Consum mption (kwhr/yr) ns (tco2/yr) Net Carbon Emmission Primary Energy Consum mption (kwhr/yr) ns (tco2/yr) Net Carbon Emmission Biomass Fuel Oil Natural Gas Electricity Baseline Carbon Emissions Scenario Carbon Emissions 48

49 Estimated Cost of Transformation US Auto Safety Regulations 2% First Cost Premium 100% CO2 Emission Reductions Incremental Investment to Achieve Reduction $200 Required Building Efficiency Investments 3% Cost 13% Total Investment CO2 Emission Red duction* 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% $175 $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 Incremen ntal Investment, $B 0% < 5 year payback <10 year payback > 10 year payback $0 Building Fire Safety Regulations 5% First Cost Premium *reflects scale up of buildings contribution to IEA Blue Map scenario,

50 Capacity: Workforce and Skills US-SE Single Family 2005 Reference: $12.0B market in 2005 $4.2B Contract labor 311, 900 home projects Business as usual: $15.0B market in 2050 $5.3B Contract labor 392,500 home projects Transformation: $27.9B market in 2050 $8.1B Contracted labor 392,500 home projects Thousa ands Cumulative Adopted (M) PV CO2 Heat Pump Hot Water Super Insulation Heat Pumps Condensing Boilers

51 Recommendations 51

52 Conclusions Buildings are critical to carbon abatement Carbon pricing alone will not impact the building sector Whole building policy measures are necessary 52