Get Real: Energy Savings in Actual Buildings Design and Facility Management Experience

Transcription

1 Design and Facility Management Experience

2 Design and Facility Management Experience VP Facilities Management PE, CHFM, CHEP, CMVP John D Angelo Eric Vandenbroucke Principal & Client Executive PE, LEED AP HESNI Member 2

3 Presentation Agenda Why worry about energy? Some Statistics Mechanical Systems Lighting Systems Other Possible Considerations Questions 3

4 Hospitals Use Lots of Energy CBECS Results Large (>200,000 SF) hospitals use 458 trillion Btu/year 5.5% of USA commercial building energy use 1.96 billion SF 3.3 million employees (586 SF/employee) 915,000 licensed beds (2,140 SF/bed) 234 kbtu/sf/year (down from 249 in 2003) 80% of most hospitals carbon footprint comes from energy use

5 Energy Use Distribution 5

6 Application of Ideas 6 Some of these may not apply to the traditional hospital building Industry shift from Inpatient to Outpatient Opportunities -Move away from traditional thinking and traditional systems What is under IDPH jurisdiction? Costs will vary with building variables

7 What is possible? 7 Source: Advanced Energy Design Guide for Large Hospitals, ASHRAE/AIA/IESNA/USGBC/USDOE

8 Real World Example Cleveland Clinic Twinsburg FHC/ASC 8

9 Attribute FHC/ASC #1 FHC/ASC #2 Size 190,000 sf 190,000 sf minimum 25% improvement 16% improvement Envelope Walls R-10 (FHC), R-22 (ASC) R-13 Roof R-20, reflective R-30, reflective Glazing U=0.4, SHGC= 0.23 U=0.35, SHGC=0.215 Lighting Exterior HID site, LED wall washers LED Interior LPD 0.61 w/sf 1.06 w/sf Lamps LED downlights, T5 area lights T8 EXIT signage LEC LED HVAC FHC ASC Evaporative cooled RTU with economizer with hot water reheat Custom AHU with DOAS, forced-draft flex-tube heating boiler Pumps and Motors Premium Efficiency Premium Efficiency Evaporative cooled RTU with economizer with hot water reheat AHU with high efficiency modular chiller and condensing boilers 9

10 Improved Building Envelope Judson University Academic Center

11 Improved Building Envelope Judson University Academic Center

12 Energy Saving Strategies Improved Building Envelope Pros 1. Reduce building energy use by 5%-6% 2. Decrease HVAC equipment and distribution sizes 3. Decrease chilled water connection charge 4. Lower electrical service size 5. Improve thermal comfort in occupied spaces 6. Less noise intrusion Cons 1. Requires a non-typical exterior wall system to obtain the higher R-Values 2. Building costs

13 Energy Saving Strategies Plumbing System Opportunities 1. Low flow plumbing fixtures Sensor type Shower Lavs 2. New cooling towers reduced make-up water Low drift towers Improved controls 3. New kitchen equipment 4. ASHRAE 188

14 Energy Saving Strategies Plumbing System Opportunities Resulted in a 20% overall savings in water usage! - Less to pump - Less to manage - Less risk - Greater redundancy $ Water/Sewer $ Energy $ Maintenance

15 Passive Solar Solar Water Heating Get Real: Energy Savings in Actual Buildings Energy Saving Strategies Solar

16 Energy Saving Strategies Passive Solar Design Pros 1. May reduce building energy by 2%-3% 2. Decrease AC equipment and distribution sizes 3. Decrease chilled water connection charge 4. Improve summer thermal comfort near windows 5. Less glare in spaces 6. May integrate additional photovoltaics 7. Achieved through east-west building orientation, limited glazing areas, sun shade devices to completely shade windows at midday Cons 1. Limited to certain areas of the facility 2. More adaptable to horizontal campus setting 3. May affect architectural aesthetics 4. May affect daylight harvesting 5. Possibly increase bird nesting Example: Several large higher-education facilities First Cost $102, Year LCC: -$19,000

17 Solar Heating (Water) Pros 1. May reduce building energy by 1.5% 2. Lowers heating energy use on sunny days 3. Water-side reduces dependency on central steam on sunny days 4. Evacuated tubes are more efficient than flat panels Cons 1. Tremendous area required for meaningful output 2. Effectiveness reduced on cloudy days and at night 3. Full redundancy required 4. Evacuated tubes are more susceptible to un-melted snow and hail damage Example: Several smaller scale higher-education facilities First Cost: $24, Year LCC: -$42,000

18 Energy Saving Strategies Chilled Beam Cooling System Not for everyone, but not all hospital spaces have immunocompromised patients

19 Energy Saving Strategies Chilled Beam Cooling System Pros 1. Can reduce building energy by 10%-11% 2. Reduce cooling transport energy 3. Reduce fan sizes 4. Lowers reheat energy 5. Reduces peak electrical load Cons 1. Not for Inpatient Spaces IDPH 2. Requires filtration 3. Threat of condensation 4. Not for operable windows Example: LUMC School of Nursing, some Indiana projects, many education facilities First Cost $31, Year LCC: +$1,066,000

20 Energy Saving Strategies Condenser Water Heat Recovery Chiller

21 Energy Saving Strategies Condenser Water Heat Recovery Chiller Pros 1. May reduce building energy by 6%-8% 2. COP of 8 + (producing heating & cooling from common energy source) 3. Condenser water waste heat is used for reheat 4. Reduces need for steam 5. Permits choice between reheat energy sources Cons 1. Requires additional space 2. More complex control strategies 3. Introduces refrigerant (non CFC based) into the building 4. Additional maintenance 5. Equipment costs

22 Energy Saving Strategies Condenser Water Heat Recovery Chiller Case Study Facts 1. Used on several other projects with similar successful results 2. Three to four year straight payback for HR chillers in hospitals 3. If outside temp is above 50 o F, meet reheat needs of 135 o F to 140 o F 4. Big savings during months when economizer is used Aurora Grafton Campus 1. Initial Cost $360, Annual Savings $120, Simple payback: 3 years Advocate Illinois Masonic Utilized heat recovery chiller Required year-round cooling Owner desire to avoid individual medical chiller Reluctance to use air cooled chiller Results ~$6,500 annual saving ~7.5 year payback Accomplished other project goals

23 Energy Saving Strategies Air Side Economizer for VAV

24 Energy Saving Strategies Air Side Economizer for VAV Pros 1. May reduce building energy by 4%-5% 2. Provides free air cooling in spring and fall periods Cons 1. Requires significantly larger air handling equipment 2. Requires significantly larger louvers 3. Requires significantly larger ductwork Example: Used on many projects First Cost:-$110, Year LCC: +$76,000

25 Energy Saving Strategies Water Side Economizer

26 Energy Saving Strategies Water Side Economizer Pros 1. May reduce building energy by 1%-2% 2. Provides free cooling for water cooled spaces in spring and fall periods Cons 1. Requires the Installation of cooling towers or dry coolers 2. Requires roof or site space for towers 3. Requires additional maintenance 4. Requires additional space Inside building for pumps and sump 5. Requires the operation of additional motors to transfer energy from water to the air Example: Used on a handful of higher education projects First Cost:-$154, Year LCC: -$131,000 (not great results)

27 Lighting Opportunities Lots of options Preference - full replacement Lots to consider Controls Fixture design Heat dissipation Future consistency of lamping 27

28 Fixture Replacement Fixtures designed for LED lamps Optimize light distribution Heat sink Replacement circuit boards Warranty 28

29 Retrofit Lamp Replacement 29 Where to start? Assess and plan High impact first Incandescent lamps HID (MH and HPS) Halogen Considerations Area served Existing circuits/controls Color temperature/visual Re-lamping versus new fixtures Incandescent Lamp MH Lamp MR16 Lamp

30 30 Get Real: Energy Savings in Actual Buildings Retrofit Lamp Replacement Replacement options Incandescent to CFL 100 W to 26 W maintain 1700 lumens Efficacy: 17 lumens/w vs. 65 lumens/w Incandescent to LED 100 W to 22 W maintain 1700 lumens Efficacy: 17 lumens/w vs. 78 lumens/w Halogen (MR16) to LED 30 W to 3 W maintain 250 lumens Efficacy: 8 lumens/w vs. 83 lumens/w Incandescent PAR 30 to LED 60 W to 10 W maintain 750 lumens Efficacy: 12 lumens/w vs. 75 lumens/w LED Lamps CFL Lamps

31 31 Get Real: Energy Savings in Actual Buildings Retrofit Fixture Modifications Be careful! Retrofit vs. new? Warranty? Maintain existing circuits Manufacturer specific Site lighting fixtures 250 W and 400 W MH to LED Saves up to 50% over MH lamps LED Site Fixture LED Site Fixture Retrofit

32 Retrofit -LED Surgical Lights 32 Save lighting energy Save much more HVAC energy No beam of halogen light heat Staff turns up the thermostats Maintaining RH is much easier LED Surgical Light

33 Retrofit Surgical Light Example 33 LED Surgical Light 1Operating Room Halogen Exam Light Lighting 250 W (each) HVAC (60F@ 60% RH = 45F dew-point) = 19 kw LED Exam Light Lighting 65 W (each) HVAC (65F at 60% RH = 50F dew-point) = 13 kw

34 34 Retrofit Controls Modifications Don t settle for Code Minimum Occupancy/vacancy sensors Utilize existing wiring/circuits Wall type utilize ex. conduit/boxes Low initial investment 30% to 80% energy reduction Toilet rooms (55%-75%) Offices/Conf Rooms (35%-45%) Staff areas (30%-40%) Dual Technology Sensor Occupancy / Vacancy Sensors Wall mounted sensor/switch

35 35 Retrofit Controls Modifications Emergency lighting fixtures On at all times Up to 20% of fixtures in a facility Control emergency fixtures along with normal fixtures Illumination on loss of power Even when fixture is off Remote test switches Emergency Relay Test Switch and Relay

36 Renovation Get Real: and Energy Construction Savings in Actual Buildings Renovatin 36 Additional Lighting Considerations LED vs Fluorescent LED is the new standard Costs are very competitive Lamp size Long operation life less maintenance Lower heat output Multiple manufacturers and competition Control zones Split up areas Alternate fixtures Multi level fixtures Dimming check compatibility of controls DALI

37 37 Additional Lighting Considerations Corridor Lighting Down Lights cans LED vs. fluorescent Same fixture count, same lighting level Approximate 50% reduction in power 2x2 Lay In Fixtures troffers LED vs. fluorescent Same fixture count, same lighting level Approximate 45% reduction in power CFL can fixture Volumetric Troffer

38 38 Get Real: Energy Savings in Actual Buildings Additional Lighting Considerations Daylighting Promotes healing Translates into reductions in: Lighting energy Cooling loads Lamp replacement maintenance Mechanical equipment/mechanical rooms Balance Additional glazing and skin costs Shading costs Solar heat gain Orientation Patient Room Lobby

39 Additional Lighting Considerations 39 Consider use of the space What is appropriate? Lighting facts Label Roadmap to lamps for comparison Funding sources Get Real: Energy Savings in Actual Buildings Grants from community organizations Utility grants Rebates Lighting Facts Label

40 There are a lot of ways to save energy! Questions/Discussion? Thank you! John D Angelo, PE, CHFM, CHEP, CMVP johndangelo@northwestern.edu Eric Vandenbroucke PE, LEED AP vandenbrouckeej@kjww.com