Kaiserslautern Energy Efficiency Cost Optimization (EECO) 12 MAY 2011

Transcription

1 Kaiserslautern Energy Efficiency Cost Optimization (EECO) 12 MAY 2011

2 Agenda US Army Garrison Kaiserslautern, Germany Project Scope and Objectives Technical Approach Energy Audit Results Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Challenges ecomet 2

3 US Army Garrison Kaiserslautern U.S. Army component of the Kaiserslautern Military Community Largest concentration of Americans outside US Primary Logistics Hub for U.S. Forces Europe "This study will provide the base document we will use as the foundation of our energy reduction program. Mr. Bill Mack, USAG DPW and 2011 DPW Executive of the Year 3

4 USAG Kaiserslautern Regional Profile 4

5 Project Scope Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Energy Audit included 93 Buildings Over 2 Million square feet located on 8 installations 14% of Kaiserslautern buildings (by area) Representative building types Installation Gross Square Footage # Facilities SEMBACH 1,284, DAENNER 85,068 4 PANZER AND ESC 173,389 8 KLEBER 229,892 6 RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS 147,322 5 MIESAU AMMO DEPOT 24,150 3 LANDSTUHL REG MED CENTER 44,429 3 KAISERSLAUTERN ARMY DEPOT 80,

6 Project Objectives Army Garrisons world-wide are required to perform annual energy and water assessments and audits of facilities in order to: Identify how energy and water is being consumed by installation real property assets Develop a program of Energy Conservation Opportunities (ECOs) and Energy Conservation Projects (ECPs) that will be implemented to reduce energy usage, conserve water, reduce operating costs, and attain the sustainability level as required by law. 6

7 Key Energy Goals Reduce Energy Intensity EISA 2007: Conduct Energy and Water Assessments EO 13423: Reduce energy use by 3% annually 30% by 2015 relative to 2003 baseline Expand Use of Renewable Energy EPACT 2005: Increase use for electricity to 7.5% by 2013 EO 13423: Half of renewable energy from new sources Potable Water EO13514: Reduce Potable water by 2% annually 26% by 2020 relative to 2007 baseline Advance Metering EPACT 2005: Install meters by October

8 Other Guiding Documents Heat Act (EEWärmeG) 14% of heat from renewable sources by 2020 EnEV 2009 Focuses on New Buildings and design standards Addresses modification to Existing Building and Structures IMCOM Campaign Plan (Energy Efficiency Security) Reduced energy and water consumption Increase energy and water efficiency and modernize infrastructure Improve the development of renewable and alternative energy Reduced Carbon Footprint on the environment IMCOM goal is 34% reduction by 2020 relative to 2008 baseline 8

9 Typical Audit Process Review utility bills/consumption data Confirm operating hours and occupancy Interview Maintenance Staff Compile equipment inventory Lighting Motors/pumps Heating Hot Water Building Shell Chillers Air Handlers Identify potential Energy Conservation Opportunities Perform Economic Analysis using Simple Payback criteria 9

10 Building Shell Analysis and Results Walls with EIFS Adding 4 EIFS provided SPB > 50 years Walls without EIFS Adding 4 EIFS provided SPB of 14 years Insulated Aluminum Windows Replacing with energy efficient windows provided SPB>50 years Single Pane Steel Windows Adding storm windows provided SPB of 10 years Roofs Many Roofs reaching end of useful life Recommend 8 of insulation Confidential during Information 10

11 Lighting Analysis and Results Existing T8 Fixtures Use lower wattage bulbs (36W to 32W) SPB is approximately 3-4 years Sensors Many opportunities for sensors SPB under 10 years when sensor controls more than 4 fixtures Take advantage of natural day lighting 11

12 Domestic Water Analysis and Results Sinks Largest opportunity is installation of aerators (SPB < 1 yr) Toilets/Urinals Replace with 6L/3L provided SPB > 30 years Showers Replace with low-flow shower heads (SPB < 1 yr) Water Heaters No Cost temperature setbacks Reduce from 140 to 120 F 12

13 HVAC Analysis and Recommendations Heating District Hot Water with limited opportunities No Cost Temperature setback of 2 F Programmable controls for individual radiators Cooling Limited Comfort Cooling based on climate and regulations Replace with more efficient units at end of normal lifecycle 13

14 EECO Assessment Results

15 Outcomes Recommended ECOs by System System # ECOs MMBTU kgal Cost Investment Simple Saved Saved Savings ($) Cost ($) Payback Building Envelope 66 26,519 - $ 615,779 $ 3,935, Plumbing Systems 159 1,411 10,450 $ 82,903 $ 57, HVAC 88 5,230 - $ 138,781 $ 83, Lighting & Electrical 560 6,314 - $ 201,271 $ 721, Grand Total ,475 10,450 $ 1,038,733 $ 4,799, Most immediate paybacks comes from HVAC, Plumbing, and Lighting Systems Grouped ECOs into ECPs by system and installation Prioritized list of buildings by $ Savings and SPB 15

16 Table of Savings Units Consumption Baseline (FY03 Energy) (FY07 Water) USAG-KL Consumption (FY10) USAG-KL Consumption Goal (FY10) Consumption Versus Goals (FY10) Parsons Proposed ECOs MMBTU/ksf (2.14) 2.81 kgal 114, , ,912 (1,688) 10,450 Kaiserslautern reduced energy consumption by 12% and water consumption by 4.5% Both reductions did not meet FY10 Goals Can meet goals if recommended ECOs are implemented Adopt ECOs for use on other buildings Conduct additional energy audits Aggressive metering 16

17 Renewable Energy Feasibility Study 17

18 Feasibility Study Initial review of renewable technologies Focus on Sembach Annex Evaluated 7 other installations Types of technology reviewed Biopower Wind Turbines Photovoltaics Concentrated Photovoltaic and Thermal Architectural Wind Ground Source Heat Pumps 18

19 Most Viable Renewable Technologies Concentrated PV and Thermal Open areas identified for concentrated panels Low installation cost High efficiency Ground Source Heat pumps Available land but unclear geography/soil Good efficiency Solar Photovoltaic Ample roof space Average installation cost 19

20 Renewable Feasibility Outcomes Evaluated and not recommended Biopower High investment costs Potential limits on resources in the local area based on current and future biomass growth targets by host country Large Wind Turbines Wind Speed not adequate in area Permitting challenges with host governmental agencies Architectural Wind Only test sites available Manufacturer currently does not produce the technology on a commercial level 20

21 Unique Project Challenges Limited utility meter information Single meter for multiple installations Conversion to $ and MMBTU Unoccupied buildings Real Property transfer from Air Force to Army Assess for future use based on current observations Technical translation of equipment data Research of available alternatives 21

22 Unique Project Challenges USAG Kaiserslautern implemented many energy projects Low Hanging Fruit is picked High SPB items include building Shell Human Dynamics (switching, thermostats, etc) Primary use of ecomet as analysis tool Standard Building Assessment Report 22

23 ecomet Energy Condition Management Estimation Technology Enter Utility Information (Consumption) Auditors Enter Energy Characteristics All major energy consuming equipment Analysis of Energy Savings opportunities Selection of optimal results ECO recommendation for those that meet SPB Calculates corresponding GHG reductions 23