White Paper ENVELOPE-FIRST APPROACH TO NET-ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS

Transcription

1 BOULDER CHICAGO NASHVILLE SALT LAKE CITY SAN FRANCISCO SPRINGFIELD, MO WASHINGTON, DC 2540 Frontier Avenue, Suite 100 Boulder, Colorado White Paper ENVELOPE-FIRST APPROACH TO NET-ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS by Roger Hedrick, LEED AP Director of Technical Resources Architectural Energy Corporation Prepared for Kingspan Industries October 21, 2010

2 PAGE 2 OF 40 Executive Summary A simulation analysis was performed to evaluate the energy efficiency impact of constructing typical buildings with high performance insulated metal panel wall and roof systems, and the additional steps necessary to achieve net-zero energy buildings. Three buildings, school, office and warehouse, were simulated in four locations. Baseline buildings for each location, which are compliant with ASHRAE Standard and , were developed. Then the envelope was improved with the insulated metal panel wall and roof systems. Typical energy conservation measures, which varied by building type, were then applied, and finally photovoltaic arrays were sized to achieve energy savings of 30%, 50%, 70% and 100% over the baseline buildings. The results showed that the increased insulation and reduced air leakage of the high-performance, insulated metal panel wall and roof construction achieved significant energy savings. This was particularly true for the school building, the configuration of which resulted in a large surface to volume ratio. Energy savings for the insulated metal panel construction alone were as high as 22%. For the office and warehouse, which had much lower surface to volume ratios and higher internal loads, the energy savings were lower, but still ranged up to 7% and 19%, respectively. Energy savings when additional energy conservation measures are applied ranged up to 55% for the school, 20% for the office and 28% for the warehouse. PV array sizing, in terms of both kw capacity and collector array area, as necessary to meet the various savings targets are identified. Introduction Energy consumption by buildings accounts for 39% of the energy consumed in the United States (EIA 2010). With current concerns over global warming and the associated impacts of energy consumption, energy efficiency has become dramatically more important as a design goal in buildings. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is providing a marketing benefit to energy efficient, sustainable designs. Possible future imposition of carbon taxes on energy consumption, and otherwise increasing energy costs are making the economics of energy efficient buildings increasingly favorable. While many current buildings are being designed to be highly efficient, many believe that future buildings must achieve net-zero energy consumption, and even become net energy producers. In order to help the building industry reach this objective, the U.S. Department of Energy has set a goal of achieving net-zero energy commercial buildings that will be commercially marketable by Achieving net-zero energy buildings requires two distinct but complementary aspects of a building s design. First, the building must be made as energy efficient as possible. Second, the building must include means of producing energy from renewable resources. With currently available technology, this generally means wind generators, solar thermal systems and, most commonly, photovoltaic solar collectors. Net-zero buildings must have renewable energy sources which produce energy which equals or exceeds the amount of energy the building consumes from traditional sources natural gas or other fossil fuels and utility grid electricity. When the building is highly efficient to start with, the size of the renewable energy system can be reduced, and generally the cost of energy efficiency will be lower than that of a larger renewable energy system. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings involves a wide variety of approaches and design options, including: Building orientation and configuration for solar heat gain and daylight availability Increased wall and roof insulation Air sealing to reduce infiltration Cool white roof Improved fenestration to optimize solar heat gain and visible light, with reduced air leakage and heat loss

3 PAGE 3 OF 40 Improved lighting system design Daylighting controls and occupancy sensors Reduced plug loads and controls to turn off equipment Improved HVAC system designs The strategies listed above are presented in essentially the order in which they should be applied to a new building design. Building orientation and configuration is one of the first design decisions that a design team needs to make, and has an impact on many succeeding decisions, particularly those related to solar control and daylighting. Once the building configuration is determined, then measures to minimize the heating and cooling loads should be implemented, including increased wall and roof insulation, glazing system U-value, air leakage reduction, high reflectivity roofing, window shading, and other measures applied to the building envelope. Then measures which reduce direct energy consumption internal gains are applied. These are primarily improved lighting system designs which reduce installed wattage and add controls to turn off unneeded lights, and installing lower power office and process equipment. Finally, installation of high efficiency HVAC systems which utilize, among many other approaches, heat recovery, economizer cooling, good control and monitoring systems, and high efficiency heating and cooling units. This paper will describe the application of an insulated panel construction system to three buildings in four climates. The insulated panel system provides high levels of wall and roof insulation, and reduced air leakage. Additional energy conservations measures (ECMs) are then applied to achieve a highly efficient building design. Finally, PV systems are applied to achieve net-zero buildings. Kingspan Insulated Panels offers a variety of custom, factory assembled insulated panels for both walls and roofs. The panels for a particular building are custom fabricated in the factory for that building. The panels offer insulation values up to R-48 for both roof and walls. In addition, the joining system and factory fabrication provides an envelope with low air leakage. Approach Simulation analysis was used to evaluate the energy consumption effects on three buildings using insulated panel construction, then applying a number of energy conservation measures, and finally calculating the PV array size required to reach net-zero energy cost. The three buildings simulated were: A 110,348 ft² school building A four story, 71,468 ft² office building A 100,000 ft² warehouse building These three building models came from various sources. The school building was an actual design supplied by an architectural firm as a Revit model. The office building was an EnergyPlus model provided by the Department of Energy as a reference building. The warehouse was a model provided by Building Science Corporation based on a previous project they performed for Kingspan Insulated Panels. EQuest/DOE2.2 was used to perform the analysis of the school and warehouse, and EnergyPlus was used to analyze the office building. For each building type, baseline buildings were developed using the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standards and Each of the baselines was modeled using four different wall constructions, using minimum insulation levels for each: EIFS (exterior insulation and finish system), Split faced block,

4 PAGE 4 OF 40 Tilt-up wall panels, and Single-skin with batt insulation. Each of the three buildings was simulated in four locations. These locations represent 4 different climate zones, as defined in Standard As can be seen from Figure 1, these climate zones cover nearly all of the U. S. The six locations were: Anchorage (climate zone 7) Minneapolis (climate zone 6) Boston (climate zone 5) Baltimore (climate zone 4) Figure 1 Climate Zones in the United States, as Defined in Standard Insulation levels for the baseline buildings were varied by climate zone, as shown in Table 1. Then, Kingspan insulated panels were used for the walls and roof. Six different configurations were simulated: Wall R-15 (2 inches thick), Roof R-25 (3 inches) Wall R-15 (2 inches), Roof R-33 (4 inches) Wall R-25 (3 inches), Roof R-33 (4 inches) Wall R-25 (3 inches), Roof R-40 (5 inches) Wall R-33 (4 inches), Roof R-40 (5 inches) Wall R-33 (4 inches), Roof R-48 (6 inches)

5 PAGE 5 OF 40 Wall R-41 (5 inches), Roof R-48 (6 inches) Wall R-48 (6 inches), Roof R-48 (6 inches) Table 1 Baseline (ASHRAE or 2007) Building Wall and Roof Insulation R-Values Tilt-Up/ EIFS Split-Face Single Skin Roof* Block Continuous Batt Overall Effective Continuous Batt Effective Continuous Anchorage x x Minneapolis Boston Baltimore * For Single Skin construction, roof insulation is R-13 batt (effective R=7.69), except in Anchorage where two layers of R13 insulation is used (effective R=15.38). These values apply for both the 2004 and 2007 baselines. Once the modeled envelope had been improved as much as possible, additional energy conservation measures (ECMs) were applied. These varied slightly by building, but included options such as window overhangs, improved glazing, reduced lighting power, exhaust air heat recovery, daylight controls on lighting, skylights, and high efficiency heating and cooling equipment. Finally, once the efficiency building had been defined, PV array sizing was determined. Arrays were sized to achieve 30%, 50%, 70% and 100% energy cost savings, i.e., reaching a net-zero energy cost design. Note that there are a number of definitions for net zero energy buildings: net-zero energy cost, net-zero site energy, netzero source energy, net-zero carbon, and potentially others. For this paper, we use net-zero to mean net-zero energy cost. For each of the cases, for each location, simulation results are presented in terms of annual energy cost, annual energy cost savings, percent energy cost savings, site energy per square foot of floor area, carbon emissions (based on state average utility data), and carbon savings. The analysis used energy cost data from the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. The data provide state average costs for electricity and natural gas. The natural gas data are annual averages from The electricity values are from February The data used are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Utility Prices Electricity ( /kwh) Natural Gas ($/therm) Anchorage Minneapolis Boston Baltimore

6 PAGE 6 OF 40 Carbon emissions were calculated from each building s energy consumption using carbon emissions factors based on state average utility data. The emissions factors for electricity are from the egrid emissions database maintained by the US EPA. The value for natural gas is based on stoichiometric combustion of methane. The values used are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Carbon Emissions Factors for Site Energy Consumption Electricity (Lbs/MWh) Natural Gas (Lbs/MBtu) Alaska 1, Minnesota 1, Massachusetts 1, Maryland 1,

7 PAGE 7 OF 40 School Building The school building is a single story building with multiple wings, totaling 110,348 ft². The building includes classrooms, offices, gymnasium, and library. Figure 2 shows an image of the building as it is modeled. Figure 2 School Building as modeled in EQuest Tables 4, 5 and 6 provide additional details on the building model. Table 4 provides data on the glazing used. Insulation levels were provided above in Table 1. Table 5 provides the internal loads and Table 6 describes the heating and cooling systems. Table 4 Glazing Data - School Glass Type Double pane Glass SHGC 0.39 Center of Glass U-Value 0.57 Btuh/ft²/ F Window Frame Type Aluminum w/thermal Break Table 5 Internal Load Data - School Occupancy Varies by space type Lighting Power Varies by Space type according to W/ft² office, 1.4 W/ft² classroom Plug Loads 0.75 W/ft² office, 0.5 W/ft² classroom Infiltration Rate: Varies by wall type - EIFS air changes /hour(ach) - Tilt-Up ACH - Split-Face Block ACH - Single Skin w/batt ACH - Kingspan Panels ACH Ventilation Rate 17 cfm/person office, 15 cfm/person classroom

8 PAGE 8 OF 40 Table 6 HVAC Systems - School System Type Packaged VAV-Reheat Cooling Source DX Cooling Efficiency 8.9 SEER Heating Hot-Water Reheat Heating Source Gas Boiler Heating Efficiency 80% Economizer Dry-Bulb A number of energy conservation measures were applied to the school, after the envelope had been upgraded with the Kingspan Insulated panel construction. The ECMs were: Window Overhangs and Fins Cool Roof Reduced Lighting Power (85% of Base) Skylights and Daylighting Controls High Performance Glazing (U = 0.30 Btuh/ft²/ F, SHGC = 0.28) Heat Recovery on Exhaust Air (50% effectiveness) The final step in achieving a net-zero energy building is to install on-site, renewable power generating systems. In this case, it is assumed that photovoltaic arrays are installed. The array sizing is shown in Table 7. These array sizes are based on a polycrystalline collector, mounted at an angle equal to the latitude. Table 7 PV Array Sizing School Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Anchorage Minneapolis Boston Baltimore Array Capacity (kw) 50% Savings % Savings Net Zero % Savings % Savings Net Zero Array Area (ft²) 50% Savings 3, ,953 70% Savings 33,663 25,880 17,271 24,221 Net Zero 79,259 77,804 48,036 56,124 50% Savings 8,214-1,065 6,850 70% Savings 36,632 30,885 19,854 26,559 Net Zero 79,259 77,804 48,036 56,124 No size is shown for 30% savings for the school because savings exceeded 30% in all cases.

9 PAGE 9 OF 40 Results Energy Cost and Savings Table 8 shows the annual energy cost for the various configurations of the school building. Operating costs are highest in Minneapolis and Boston due to the cold climate and higher utility costs. Anchorage has the coldest climate, but the natural gas cost is low, offsetting the increased gas consumption. Figure 3 shows an energy cost breakdown by end-use for selected cases for Minneapolis. Results for the other cities show a similar pattern. Table 9 shows the operating cost savings in dollars and Table 10 shows the savings in percent, as compared to the compliant, split-face block baseline. Tables 11 and 12 show the savings compared to the , split face block baseline. Table 8 Annual Energy Costs for the School Building Annual Energy Cost EIFS $217,465 $219,799 $254,473 $199,207 Tilt-Up $218,292 $223,450 $258,382 $202,232 Split Face Block $221,954 $233,594 $276,470 $207,340 Single Skin $240,877 $266,563 $334,235 $216,616 EIFS $207,974 $205,337 $241,380 $187,432 Tilt-Up $203,938 $204,067 $240,071 $188,079 Split Face Block $207,501 $211,081 $253,261 $192,146 Single Skin $240,877 $266,563 $334,235 $216,616 Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $208,773 $201,885 $236,010 $187,971 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $203,628 $196,802 $231,371 $184,696 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $197,865 $190,404 $225,078 $180,006 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $195,730 $188,017 $222,780 $178,035 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $193,684 $185,906 $220,812 $176,175 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $192,223 $184,035 $219,117 $174,577 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $191,242 $182,858 $217,480 $173,466 $190,705 $182,168 $216,647 $172,943 $115,746 $105,007 $129,502 $109,428 50% Savings PV $110, $103,670 70% Savings PV $66,586 $70,078 $82,941 $62,202 Net Zero PV $0 $0 $0 $0 Note: Insulation levels pairs (e.g. R25/R40) indicate the wall and roof R-values, respectively. Where no value is shown for 30% or 50% Savings PV 30% or 50% savings were achieved without PV.

10 PAGE 10 OF % 90% Percent of Total Energy Cost 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Savings DHW Fans Pumps Cooling Heating Process Loads Area Lighting 10% 0% Split Face Block Kingspan Panel R15/R33 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 Kingspan Panel R48/R48 Kingspan + ECMs ECMs + 70% PV ECMs + 100% PV Figure 3 Energy Cost Breakdown by End Use Minneapolis School

11 PAGE 11 OF 40 Table 9 Annual Energy Cost Savings for the School Split Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS $4,489 $13,795 $21,997 $8,133 Tilt-Up $3,662 $10,144 $18,088 $5,108 Split Face Block Single Skin ($18,923) ($32,969) ($57,765) ($9,276) EIFS $13,980 $28,257 $35,090 $19,908 Tilt-Up $18,016 $29,527 $36,399 $19,261 Split Face Block $14,453 $22,513 $23,209 $15,194 Single Skin ($18,923) ($32,969) ($57,765) ($9,276) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $13,181 $31,709 $40,460 $19,369 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $18,326 $36,792 $45,099 $22,644 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $24,089 $43,190 $51,392 $27,334 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $26,224 $45,577 $53,690 $29,305 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $28,270 $47,688 $55,658 $31,165 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $29,731 $49,559 $57,353 $32,763 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $30,712 $50,736 $58,990 $33,874 $31,249 $51,426 $59,823 $34,397 $106,208 $128,587 $146,968 $97,912 50% Savings PV $110, $103,670 70% Savings PV $155,368 $163,516 $193,529 $145,138 Net Zero PV $221,954 $233,594 $276,470 $207,340

12 PAGE 12 OF 40 Table 10 Annual Energy Cost Percent Savings for the School Split Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS % 6% 8% 4% Tilt-Up % 4% 7% 2% Split Face Block Single Skin (9%) (14%) (21%) (4%) EIFS % 12% 13% 10% Tilt-Up % 13% 13% 9% Split Face Block % 10% 8% 7% Single Skin (9%) (14%) (21%) (4%) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 6% 14% 15% 9% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 8% 16% 16% 11% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 11% 18% 19% 13% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 12% 20% 19% 14% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 13% 20% 20% 15% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 13% 21% 21% 16% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 14% 22% 21% 16% 14% 22% 22% 17% 48% 55% 53% 47% 50% Savings PV 50% % 70% Savings PV 70% 70% 70% 70% Net Zero PV 100% 100% 100% 100%

13 PAGE 13 OF 40 Table 11 Annual Energy Cost Savings for the School Split Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS ($473) $5,744 $11,881 $4,714 Tilt-Up $3,563 $7,014 $13,190 $4,067 Split Face Block Single Skin ($33,376) ($55,482) ($80,974) ($24,470) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 ($1,272) $9,196 $17,251 $4,175 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $3,873 $14,279 $21,890 $7,450 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $9,636 $20,677 $28,183 $12,140 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $11,771 $23,064 $30,481 $14,111 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $13,817 $25,175 $32,449 $15,971 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $15,278 $27,046 $34,144 $17,569 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $16,259 $28,223 $35,781 $18,680 $16,796 $28,913 $36,614 $19,203 $91,755 $106,074 $123,759 $82,718 50% Savings PV $103, $96,073 70% Savings PV $145,251 $147,757 $177,283 $134,502 Net Zero PV $207,501 $211,081 $253,261 $192,146 Table 12 Annual Energy Cost Percent Savings for the School Split Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS % 3% 5% 2% Tilt-Up % 3% 5% 2% Split Face Block Single Skin (16%) (26%) (32%) (13%) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 (1% 4% 7% 2% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 2% 7% 9% 4% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 5% 10% 11% 6% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 6% 11% 12% 7% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 7% 12% 13% 8% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 7% 13% 13% 9% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 8% 13% 14% 10% 8% 14% 14% 10% 44% 50% 49% 43% 50% Savings PV 50% % 70% Savings PV 70% 70% 70% 70% Net Zero PV 100% 100% 100% 100%

14 PAGE 14 OF 40 Energy Use Intensity Table 13 shows the energy intensity, expressed as kbtu of site energy per square foot of floor area (kbtu/ft²), for the various building configurations and locations. Table 13 Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Floor Area for the School Building Annual Energy Consumption (kbtu/ft²) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV

15 PAGE 15 OF 40 Carbon Emissions Table 14 shows the annual carbon emissions associated with the energy consumption of the various building configurations and locations. Table 15 presents the reductions in carbon emissions, compared to the Split Face Block baseline case in tons of carbon, and Table 16 shows the reductions in percent. Table 14 Annual Carbon Emissions for the School Building Annual Carbon Emissions (tons) EIFS ,345 1,465 1, Tilt-Up ,353 1,485 1,028 1,011 Split Face Block ,378 1,545 1,097 1,034 Single Skin ,509 1,740 1,319 1,077 EIFS ,279 1, Tilt-Up ,252 1, Split Face Block ,277 1,411 1, Single Skin ,509 1,740 1,319 1,077 Kingspan Panel R15/R25 1,283 1, Kingspan Panel R15/R33 1,247 1, Kingspan Panel R25/R33 1,206 1, Kingspan Panel R25/R40 1,191 1, Kingspan Panel R33/R40 1,176 1, Kingspan Panel R33/R48 1,166 1, Kingspan Panel R41/R48 1,159 1, ,155 1, % Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV 190 (288) 29 (48)

16 PAGE 16 OF 40 Table 15 Annual Carbon Emissions Reduction School Split Face Block Baseline Annual Carbon Emissions Reduction (tons) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (130) (196) (222) (43) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (130) (196) (222) (43) Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV 925 1, Net Zero PV 1,188 1,833 1,069 1,082

17 PAGE 17 OF 40 Table 16 Annual Carbon Emissions Percent Reduction School Split Face Block Baseline Annual Carbon Emissions Reduction EIFS % 5% 8% 4% Tilt-Up % 4% 6% 2% Split Face Block Single Skin (9%) (13%) (20%) (4%) EIFS % 11% 12% 9% Tilt-Up % 11% 13% 9% Split Face Block % 9% 8% 7% Single Skin (9%) (13%) (20%) (4%) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 7% 12% 14% 8% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 10% 14% 16% 10% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 13% 16% 18% 12% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 14% 17% 19% 13% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 15% 18% 19% 14% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 15% 19% 20% 14% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 16% 19% 20% 15% 16% 19% 21% 15% 53% 50% 51% 44% 50% Savings PV 54% % 70% Savings PV 67% 73% 68% 70% Net Zero PV 86% 119% 97% 105%

18 PAGE 18 OF 40 Office Building The office building is a four story, rectangular building containing 71,468 ft². Each floor has five zones, a perimeter zone on each face plus a core zone. Figure 4 shows an image of the building as it is modeled. Figure 4 Office Building as modeled in EnergyPlus and OpenStudio Table 17 provides additional details on the building envelope. Table 18 provides details on internal loads of the building. Table 19 describes the heating and cooling systems. Table 17 Envelope Data Office Glass Type Double pane Percentage of Wall Area 33% (Percent of Total Wall Area) Glass SHGC 0.39 East, West, South 0.49 North Center of Glass U-Value 0.57 Btuh/ft²/ F Window Frame Type Aluminum w/thermal Break Table 18 Internal Load Data - Office Occupancy 228 ft²/person Lighting Power 1.1 W/ft² Plug Loads 0.75 W/ft² Elevator Equipment 32.1 Infiltration Rate: Varies by wall type - EIFS ACH Perimeter, 0.10 ACH Top Floor Core - Tilt-Up ACH Perimeter, 0.10 ACH Top Floor Core - Split Face Block ACH Perimeter, 0.15 ACH Top Floor Core - Single Skin w/batt ACH Perimeter, ACH Top Floor Core - Kingspan Panels ACH Perimeter, 0.06 ACH Top Floor Core Ventilation Rate 24 cfm/person

19 PAGE 19 OF 40 Table 19 HVAC Systems - Office System Type Packaged VAV-Reheat Cooling Source Two-Speed DX Cooling Efficiency 13 SEER Heating Hot-Water Reheat Heating Source Gas Boiler Heating Efficiency 75% Economizer Dry-Bulb A number of energy conservation measures were applied to the office, after the envelope had been upgraded with the Kingspan Insulated panel construction. The ECMs were: Window Overhangs and Fins Reduced Lighting Power (0.88 W/ft²) High Performance Glazing (U = 0.29 Btuh/ft²/ F, SHGC = 0.27) Increased Boiler Efficiency (82%) Increased Cooling Efficiency (COP = 3.84) Reduced Static Pressure Ductwork Photovoltaic array sizing is shown in Table 20. These array sizes are based on a polycrystalline collector, mounted at an angle equal to the latitude. Table 20 PV Array Sizing Office Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Anchorage Minneapolis Boston Baltimore Array Capacity (kw) 30% Savings % Savings % Savings Net Zero % Savings % Savings % Savings Net Zero Array Area (ft²) 30% Savings 8,082 5,032 6,082 6,673 50% Savings 22,033 15,379 15,699 16,490 70% Savings 35,984 25,726 25,317 26,307 Net Zero 56,910 41,246 39,742 41,033 30% Savings 8,522 5,755 6,546 7,242 50% Savings 22,347 15,895 16,030 16,897 70% Savings 36,172 26,036 25,515 26,551 Net Zero 56,910 41,246 39,742 41,033

20 PAGE 20 OF 40 Results Energy Cost and Savings Table 21 shows the annual energy cost for the various configurations of the office building. Figure 5 shows an energy cost breakdown by end-use for selected cases for Minneapolis. Results for the other cities show a similar pattern. Table 22 shows the operating cost savings in dollars and Table 23 in percent, as compared to the baseline using split-face block construction. Tables 24 and 25 show the savings compared to the baseline. Table 21 Annual Energy Costs for the Office Building Annual Energy Cost EIFS $91,323 $62,114 $102,550 $85,752 Tilt-Up $91,520 $62,440 $103,303 $86,245 Split Face Block $92,030 $63,079 $103,839 $86,681 Single Skin $92,921 $64,930 $105,814 $87,493 EIFS $90,947 $61,331 $101,586 $84,502 Tilt-Up $90,687 $61,298 $101,750 $84,910 Split Face Block $91,202 $61,820 $102,410 $85,245 Single Skin $92,921 $64,930 $105,814 $87,493 Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $90,892 $61,081 $101,384 $84,496 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $90,601 $60,701 $100,985 $84,150 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $89,842 $59,944 $100,046 $83,461 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $89,655 $59,746 $99,839 $83,292 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $89,480 $59,428 $99,454 $83,026 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $89,301 $59,156 $99,293 $82,917 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $89,117 $59,020 $99,067 $82,746 $89,002 $58,838 $98,941 $82,649 $75,084 $50,290 $85,822 $72,460 30% Savings PV $64,421 $44,155 $72,687 $60,677 50% Savings PV $46,015 $31,540 $51,919 $43,340 70% Savings PV $27,609 $18,924 $31,152 $26,004 Net Zero PV $0 $0 $0 $0

21 PAGE 21 OF % 90% Percent of Total Energy Cost 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Savings DHW Pumps Fans Plug Loads Exterior Lighting Interior Lighting Cooling Heating 0% Split Face Kingspan W15R33 Kingspan W25R40 Kingspan W48R48 Kingspan + ECMs ECMs + 70% PV ECMs + 100% PV Figure 5 Energy Cost Breakdown by End Use Minneapolis Office

22 PAGE 22 OF 40 Table 22 Annual Energy Cost Savings for the Office Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS $707 $965 $1,289 $929 Tilt-Up $511 $639 $536 $436 Split Face Block Single Skin ($890) ($1,851) ($1,975) ($812) EIFS $1,084 $1,748 $2,253 $2,179 Tilt-Up $1,343 $1,781 $2,089 $1,771 Split Face Block $828 $1,260 $1,429 $1,436 Single Skin ($890) ($1,851) ($1,975) ($812) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $1,138 $1,999 $2,455 $2,185 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $1,429 $2,378 $2,854 $2,531 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $2,189 $3,135 $3,793 $3,220 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $2,375 $3,333 $4,000 $3,389 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $2,551 $3,651 $4,385 $3,655 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $2,729 $3,923 $4,546 $3,764 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $2,913 $4,059 $4,772 $3,935 $3,029 $4,241 $4,898 $4,032 $16,946 $12,789 $18,017 $14,220 30% Savings PV $27,609 $18,924 $31,152 $26,004 50% Savings PV $46,015 $31,540 $51,919 $43,340 70% Savings PV $64,421 $44,155 $72,687 $60,677 Net Zero PV $92,030 $63,079 $103,839 $86,681

23 PAGE 23 OF 40 Table 23 Annual Energy Cost Percent Savings for the Office Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS % 2% 1% 1% Tilt-Up % 1% 1% 1% Split Face Block Single Skin (1%) (3%) (2%) (1%) EIFS % 3% 2% 3% Tilt-Up % 3% 2% 2% Split Face Block % 2% 1% 2% Single Skin (1%) (3%) (2%) (1%) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 1% 3% 2% 3% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 2% 4% 3% 3% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 2% 5% 4% 4% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 3% 5% 4% 4% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 3% 6% 4% 4% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 3% 6% 4% 4% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 3% 6% 5% 5% 3% 7% 5% 5% 18% 20% 17% 16% 30% Savings PV 30% 30% 30% 30% 50% Savings PV 50% 50% 50% 50% 70% Savings PV 70% 70% 70% 70% Net Zero PV 100% 100% 100% 100%

24 PAGE 24 OF 40 Table 24 Annual Energy Cost Savings for the Office Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS $255 $488 $824 $743 Tilt-Up $515 $522 $660 $335 Split Face Block Single Skin ($1,719) ($3,111) ($3,404) ($2,248) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $310 $739 $1,026 $749 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $601 $1,119 $1,425 $1,095 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $1,360 $1,875 $2,364 $1,784 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $1,547 $2,073 $2,571 $1,953 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $1,722 $2,392 $2,956 $2,219 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $1,901 $2,664 $3,116 $2,328 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $2,085 $2,799 $3,343 $2,499 $2,200 $2,982 $3,469 $2,596 $16,118 $11,529 $16,588 $12,784 30% Savings PV $27,361 $18,546 $30,723 $25,573 50% Savings PV $45,601 $30,910 $51,205 $42,622 70% Savings PV $63,841 $43,274 $71,687 $59,671 Net Zero PV $91,202 $61,820 $102,410 $85,245 Table 25 Annual Energy Cost Percent Savings for the Office Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS % 1% 1% 1% Tilt-Up % 1% 1% 0% Split Face Block Single Skin (2%) (5%) (3%) (3%) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 0% 1% 1% 1% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 1% 2% 1% 1% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 1% 3% 2% 2% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 2% 3% 3% 2% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 2% 4% 3% 3% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 2% 4% 3% 3% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 2% 5% 3% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 18% 19% 16% 15% 30% Savings PV 30% 30% 30% 30% 50% Savings PV 50% 50% 50% 50% 70% Savings PV 70% 70% 70% 70% Net Zero PV 100% 100% 100% 100%

25 PAGE 25 OF 40 Energy Consumption Table 26 shows the energy intensity, expressed as kbtu of site energy per square foot of floor area (kbtu/ft²), for the various building configurations and locations. Table 26 Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Floor Area for the Office Building Annual Energy Consumption (kbtu/ft²) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV

26 PAGE 26 OF 40 Carbon Emissions Table 27 shows the annual carbon emissions associated with the energy consumption of the various building configurations and locations. Table 28 presents the reductions in carbon emissions, compared to the , split face block baseline case. Table 29 presents these reductions in terms of percentage reduction. Table 27 Annual Carbon Emissions for the Office Building Annual Carbon Emissions (tons) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV 22 (36) (5) (7)

27 PAGE 27 OF 40 Table 28 Annual Carbon Emissions Reduction Office Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Carbon Emissions (tons) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (5) (12) (8) (4) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (5) (12) (8) (4) Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV

28 PAGE 28 OF 40 Table 29 Annual Carbon Emissions Percent Reduction Office, Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Carbon Emissions (tons) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (5) (12) (8) (4) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (5) (12) (8) (4) Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV

29 PAGE 29 OF 40 Warehouse Building The warehouse is a single story, 100,000 ft² rectangular retail warehouse building. Figure 6 shows an image of the building as it is modeled. The five thermal zones can be seen in the figure. The image in Figure 6 includes skylights that are added to the building as an energy conservation measure, but are not included in the baselines or the runs with only the Kingspan insulated panels. Figure 6 Warehouse as modeled in EQuest. This image shows the skylights added as an ECM. Table 30 provides details on internal loads of the building, and Table 31 describes the heating and cooling systems. Table 30 Internal Load Data - Warehouse Occupancy 75 ft²/person Lighting Power 1.7 W/ft² Equipment Loads W/ft² Infiltration Rates - EIFS ACH - Tilt-Up ACH - Split-Face Block ACH - Single Skin w/batt ACH - Kingspan Panels ACH Ventilation Rate 0.25 cfm/ft²

30 PAGE 30 OF 40 Table 31 HVAC Systems - Warehouse System Type Packaged Single Zone Cooling Source DX Cooling Efficiency 9.3 SEER Heating Gas Furnace Heating Efficiency 80% Economizer Dry-Bulb A number of energy conservation measures were applied to the warehouse, after the envelope had been upgraded with the Kingspan Insulated panel construction. The ECMs were: Skylights and Daylighting Controls Reduced Lighting Power Density (1.36 W/ft²) Increased Furnace Efficiency (92%) Increased Cooling Efficiency (SEER 10.3) Photovoltaic array sizing is shown in Table 32. These array sizes are based on a polycrystalline collector, mounted at an angle equal to the latitude. Table 32 PV Array Sizing Warehouse Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Anchorage Minneapolis Boston Baltimore Array Capacity (kw) 30% Savings % Savings % Savings 1, Net Zero 1,936 1,505 1,177 1,378 30% Savings % Savings % Savings 1, Net Zero 1,936 1,505 1,177 1,378 Array Area (ft²) 30% Savings 11,643 3,145 5,660 8,335 50% Savings 49,734 34,448 29,224 35,437 70% Savings 87,824 65,752 52,789 62,539 Net Zero 144, ,707 88, ,193 30% Savings 13,063 4,706 6,582 9,363 50% Savings 50,748 35,563 29,883 36,172 70% Savings 88,433 66,421 53,184 62,980 Net Zero 144, ,707 88, ,193

31 PAGE 31 OF 40 Results Energy Cost and Savings Table 33 shows the annual energy cost for the various configurations of the warehouse. Figure 7 shows an energy cost breakdown by end-use for selected cases for Minneapolis. Results for the other cities show a similar pattern. Table 34 shows the operating cost savings in dollars and Table 35 presents percentage cost savings as compared to the split-face block, baseline. Tables 36 and 37 show the savings compared to the baseline using split-face block. Table 33 Annual Energy Costs for the Warehouse Annual Energy Cost EIFS $251,912 $183,996 $286,399 $242,649 Tilt-Up $276,037 $208,213 $313,068 $261,472 Split Face Block $278,128 $211,241 $317,642 $264,215 Single Skin $261,091 $208,992 $319,122 $264,212 EIFS $249,115 $182,019 $284,126 $242,169 Tilt-Up $273,037 $205,383 $309,549 $258,623 Split Face Block $275,167 $208,231 $314,088 $261,350 Single Skin $261,091 $208,992 $319,122 $264,212 Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $248,515 $180,341 $281,677 $240,021 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $245,969 $177,880 $278,792 $237,791 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $243,711 $175,597 $276,194 $235,819 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $242,322 $174,275 $274,621 $234,590 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $241,493 $173,468 $273,700 $233,875 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $240,379 $172,441 $272,525 $232,944 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $239,864 $171,951 $271,986 $232,545 $239,563 $171,661 $271,651 $232,300 $211,693 $152,113 $237,607 $201,201 30% Savings PV $194,690 $147,869 $222,349 $184,951 50% Savings PV $139,064 $105,621 $158,821 $132,108 70% Savings PV $83,438 $63,372 $95,293 $79,265 Net Zero PV $0 $0 $0 $0

32 PAGE 32 OF % 90% Percent of Total Energy Cost 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Savings Pumps Fans Process Loads Area Lighting Cooling Heating 0% Split Face 2004 Kingspan R15/R33 Kingspan R25/R40 Kingspan R48/R48 Kingspan + ECMs ECMs + 70% PV ECMs + 100% PV Figure 7 Energy Cost Breakdown by End Use Minneapolis Warehouse

33 PAGE 33 OF 40 Table 34 Annual Energy Cost Savings for the Warehouse Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS $26,216 $27,245 $31,243 $21,566 Tilt-Up $2,091 $3,028 $4,574 $2,743 Split Face Block Single Skin $17,037 $2,249 ($1,480) $3 EIFS $29,013 $29,222 $33,516 $22,046 Tilt-Up $5,091 $5,858 $8,093 $5,592 Split Face Block $2,961 $3,010 $3,554 $2,865 Single Skin $17,037 $2,249 ($1,480) $3 Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $29,613 $30,900 $35,965 $24,194 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $32,159 $33,361 $38,850 $26,424 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $34,417 $35,644 $41,448 $28,396 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $35,806 $36,966 $43,021 $29,625 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $36,635 $37,773 $43,942 $30,340 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $37,749 $38,800 $45,117 $31,271 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $38,264 $39,290 $45,656 $31,670 $38,565 $39,580 $45,991 $31,915 $66,435 $59,128 $80,035 $63,014 30% Savings PV $83,438 $63,372 $95,293 $79,265 50% Savings PV $139,064 $105,621 $158,821 $132,108 70% Savings PV $194,690 $147,869 $222,349 $184,951 Net Zero PV $278,128 $211,241 $317,642 $264,215

34 PAGE 34 OF 40 Table 35 Annual Energy Cost Percent Savings for the Warehouse Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS % 13% 10% 8% Tilt-Up % 1% 1% 1% Split Face Block Single Skin % 1% (0%) 0% EIFS % 14% 11% 8% Tilt-Up % 3% 3% 2% Split Face Block % 1% 1% 1% Single Skin % 1% (0%) 0% Kingspan Panel R15/R25 11% 15% 11% 9% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 12% 16% 12% 10% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 12% 17% 13% 11% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 13% 17% 14% 11% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 13% 18% 14% 11% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 14% 18% 14% 12% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 14% 19% 14% 12% 14% 19% 14% 12% 24% 28% 25% 24% 30% Savings PV 30% 30% 30% 30% 50% Savings PV 50% 50% 50% 50% 70% Savings PV 70% 70% 70% 70% Net Zero PV 100% 100% 100% 100%

35 PAGE 35 OF 40 Table 36 Annual Energy Cost Savings for the Warehouse Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS $26,052 $26,212 $29,962 $19,181 Tilt-Up $2,130 $2,848 $4,539 $2,727 Split Face Block Single Skin $14,076 ($761) ($5,034) ($2,862) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 $26,652 $27,890 $32,411 $21,329 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 $29,198 $30,351 $35,296 $23,559 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 $31,456 $32,634 $37,894 $25,531 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 $32,845 $33,956 $39,467 $26,760 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 $33,674 $34,763 $40,388 $27,475 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 $34,788 $35,790 $41,563 $28,406 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 $35,303 $36,280 $42,102 $28,805 $35,604 $36,570 $42,437 $29,050 $63,474 $56,118 $76,481 $60,149 30% Savings PV $82,550 $62,469 $94,226 $78,405 50% Savings PV $137,584 $104,116 $157,044 $130,675 70% Savings PV $192,617 $145,762 $219,862 $182,945 Net Zero PV $275,167 $208,231 $314,088 $261,350 Table 37 Annual Energy Cost Percent Savings for the Warehouse Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Energy Cost Savings EIFS % 13% 10% 7% Tilt-Up % 1% 1% 1% Split Face Block Single Skin % (0%) (2%) (1%) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 10% 13% 10% 8% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 11% 15% 11% 9% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 11% 16% 12% 10% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 12% 16% 13% 10% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 12% 17% 13% 11% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 13% 17% 13% 11% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 13% 17% 13% 11% 13% 18% 14% 11% 23% 27% 24% 23% 30% Savings PV 30% 30% 30% 30% 50% Savings PV 50% 50% 50% 50% 70% Savings PV 70% 70% 70% 70% Net Zero PV 100% 100% 100% 100%

36 PAGE 36 OF 40 Energy Use Intensity Table 38 shows the energy intensity, expressed as kbtu of site energy per square foot of floor area (kbtu/ft²), for the various building configurations and locations. Table 38 Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Floor Area for the Warehouse Annual Energy Consumption (kbtu/ft²) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV

37 PAGE 37 OF 40 Carbon Emissions Table 39 shows the annual carbon emissions associated with the energy consumption of the various building configurations and locations. Table 40 presents the reductions in carbon emissions, compared to the baseline case. Table 41 presents the carbon emissions reductions as percentages. Table 39 Annual Carbon Emissions for the Warehouse Annual Carbon Emissions (tons) EIFS ,171 1,615 1,223 1,337 Tilt-Up ,341 1,751 1,323 1,421 Split Face Block ,355 1,770 1,340 1,434 Single Skin ,237 1,761 1,347 1,438 EIFS ,150 1,604 1,215 1,335 Tilt-Up ,319 1,735 1,309 1,408 Split Face Block ,334 1,753 1,327 1,421 Single Skin ,237 1,761 1,347 1,438 Kingspan Panel R15/R25 1,141 1,604 1,208 1,328 Kingspan Panel R15/R33 1,123 1,590 1,197 1,318 Kingspan Panel R25/R33 1,107 1,576 1,187 1,309 Kingspan Panel R25/R40 1,098 1,569 1,181 1,303 Kingspan Panel R33/R40 1,092 1,564 1,177 1,300 Kingspan Panel R33/R48 1,084 1,558 1,173 1,295 Kingspan Panel R41/R48 1,080 1,555 1,171 1,293 1,078 1,554 1,169 1, ,344 1,017 1,111 30% Savings PV 908 1, ,018 50% Savings PV % Savings PV Net Zero PV 138 (198) 93 (33)

38 PAGE 38 OF 40 Table 40 Annual Carbon Emissions Reduction for the Warehouse Compared to Split-Face Block Baseline Annual Carbon Emissions (tons) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (7) (3) EIFS Tilt-Up Split Face Block Single Skin (7) (3) Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R15/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R25/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R33/R Kingspan Panel R41/R % Savings PV % Savings PV % Savings PV 887 1, ,017 Net Zero PV 1,217 1,968 1,248 1,468

39 PAGE 39 OF 40 Table 41 Annual Carbon Emissions Percent Reduction Warehouse Split Face Block Baseline Annual Carbon Emissions Reduction EIFS % 9% 9% 7% Tilt-Up % 1% 1% 1% Split Face Block Single Skin % 1% (1%) (0%) EIFS % 9% 9% 7% Tilt-Up % 2% 2% 2% Split Face Block % 1% 1% 1% Single Skin % 1% (1%) (0%) Kingspan Panel R15/R25 16% 9% 10% 7% Kingspan Panel R15/R33 17% 10% 11% 8% Kingspan Panel R25/R33 18% 11% 11% 9% Kingspan Panel R25/R40 19% 11% 12% 9% Kingspan Panel R33/R40 19% 12% 12% 9% Kingspan Panel R33/R48 20% 12% 13% 10% Kingspan Panel R41/R48 20% 12% 13% 10% 20% 12% 13% 10% 28% 24% 24% 23% 30% Savings PV 33% 26% 29% 29% 50% Savings PV 49% 51% 47% 50% 70% Savings PV 65% 75% 65% 71% Net Zero PV 90% 111% 93% 102%

40 PAGE 40 OF 40 Discussion Application of high performance insulated wall and roof panels with low air leakage offers significant energy savings to all three building types studied, particularly in colder climates. The magnitude of the energy cost savings is very large for the school building, up to 22% in Minneapolis and Boston, compared to split-faced block. The school building has a relatively large surface area, so envelope losses are also relatively high. The warehouse also provides good savings, due to the large roof area with cost savings up to 19%. The office tends toward being a cube, with minimal surface area. Energy savings for wall panels for the office are 7% or less. As part of the drive to achieve net-zero buildings, highly efficient building envelopes are required. A well insulated, low leakage envelope provides a foundation for all other energy efficiency strategies. By reducing the heating and cooling loads that must be handled by other systems, the cost of making those systems efficient is decreased. In addition, the efficient envelope will be in place throughout the life of the building, while other systems are often replaced at some point in the building s life. Installing efficient building systems by starting with the Envelope First is an ideal approach for creating a sustainable future.