Reimagining Campus Utilities into a Sustainable Future Getting the Project Going. October 2016

Transcription

1 Reimagining Campus Utilities into a Sustainable Future Getting the Project Going October 2016

2 Campus Demographics Private Liberal Arts Institution Founded 1866 Just Under 2000 Students 1000 acre campus 2,000,000 SF in 40 Buildings Campus EUI kbtu/sf/yr Greenhouse gas emissions approx. 22,000 MTCDE/yr Wind turbine provides 25-30% of current electrical requirements.

3 Central Heating Plant (c. 1910) Planning for the next 100 years

4 Campus Timeline This is what we will talk about today

5 Planning Progression Master Utility Study 2007 Climate Action Plan 2011 Strategic Plan 2012 Facilities Master Plan 2014 Utilities Master Plan 2016

6 Advancing Technologies TRANSITIONAL TIME Environmental Stewardship Fiscal Existing Infrastructure Campus Utility Master Plan Campus System Approach Campus Master Plan Design

7 DESIGN APPROACH

8 ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY - PORTFOLIO OF OPTIONS Chiller Air Handling Unit High Efficiency Boilers Heat Pumps Wind Solar Thermal/ Photovoltaics Combined Heat and Power

9 Campus Master Plan Accounting Funding Energy Source Climate Action Plan Campus Utility Master Plan Existing Utilities Future Direction - Planning - Budgeting - Renovation - Design Standards - Phasing Plan Sets Goals for Energy and Carbon Footprints - Preservation - Risk - Equipment Retirement System - Operating Costs

10 EXISTING Campus Diagram

11 Assessment of Existing Conditions ASSETS LIABILITIES

12

13 2011 Climate Action Plan: Options Evaluated Emissions Reduction Strategies

14 2014 Facilities Master Plan With a focus on replacement and renovation, the 2014 plan anticipates only 3% net growth in total campus square footage over the next years.

15 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

16 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

17 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

18 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

19 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

20 EXISTING SYSTEM

21 Existing Energy Profile High efficiency boiler load MBTU/Hr Geothermal heating (to heat pump) Simultaneous load (heat pump) Steam Boilers Geothermal cooling (to heat pump) Electric Chillers Month

22 Carleton College Campus 2016 Demand Evaluation (kw)

23 This Evaluation Examined Seven (8) Options: Base Case Keep steam plant vs. Alternative Transition to a hot water plant Option B 100% Geothermal sized to meet winter heating load Option C Geothermal sized to meet summer cooling load Option D Geothermal sized to meet simultaneous heat/cool load Option F Same as Option D but accelerated Base Case w/ CHP Option C w/ CHP Option D w/ CHP Option F w/ CHP CHP = Combined Heat and Power

24

25 $1,000, % Utility Cost ($/yr) $900,000 $800,000 7% $700,000 22% $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 52% 67% 58% Base Proposed $200,000 $100,000 $0 Base Case Option B Option C Option C w/chp Option D Option D w/chp Option F w/chp

26 $60,000, Year Life Cycle Cost Analysis $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 Option eliminated in screening process Base Case Option B Option C Option C w/chp Option D Option D w/chp Option F w/chp Operating Costs Capital Cost

27 140,000,000 Energy (MBtu/yr) 120,000, ,000,000 39% 44% 34% 80,000,000 Base 60,000,000 Proposed 40,000,000 69% 71% 76% 20,000,000 0 Base Case Option B Option C Option C w/chp Option D Option D w/chp Option F w/chp

28 20,000,000 Carbon Emissions (lb C02/yr) 18,000,000 16,000,000 25% 14,000,000 32% 12,000,000 43% 10,000,000 Base Proposed 8,000,000 6,000,000 70% 82% 74% 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 Base Case Option B Option C Option C w/chp Option D Option D w/chpoption F w/chp

29

30 Utility Master Plan Project Team Finance Facilities

31 EXISTING DISTRIBUTION PLAN 2016

32 OPTION F-CHP: 2016

33 Skinner Chapel Converted 2015

34 OPTION F-CHP: 2017

35 OPTION F-CHP: 2018

36 OPTION F-CHP: 2019

37 OPTION F-CHP: 2020

38 OPTION F-CHP:

39 OPTION F-CHP:

40 OPTION F-CHP: 2035

41 New Energy Profile High efficiency boiler load Geothermal heating (to heat pump) Simultaneous load (heat pump) Electric chillers Geothermal cooling (to heat pump)

42 Carleton College Campus 2020 Demand Evaluation (kw)

43 Utility Cost ($/yr) Energy (MBtu/yr) Carbon Emissions (lb C02/yr) $800, ,000,000 20,000,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $760,023 58% [VALUE] 120,000, ,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000, ,296, % [VALUE] 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 18,436,725 74% [VALUE] $0 0 0 Base Case Proposed Base Case Proposed Base Case Proposed

44 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 Base Case: Steam Cumulative Project Cost Capital + Operating Recommendation: Hot Water Payback period $40M savings over 30 years $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $ Calendar Year $37.7M in capital cost over the next 5 years vs. a base case of $20M in capital cost over the next 20 years. $40M in operating savings generated over the 30-year study period resulting in an estimated 17-year payback. $9.8 M positive 30-year NPV verses the Base Case.

45 2011 Climate Action Plan ACTUAL EMISSIONS By 2021: 40% reduction in total campus emissions since 2008 baseline

46 Summary of benefits Supports the Facilities Master Plan outlook for campus growth and renovation over time Plans for retirement and replacement of aging central plant equipment with technologies that are safer, more efficient Addresses Climate Action Plan goals in a meaningful way Sequences utility improvements in a strategic way that aligns with planned maintenance and construction projects Significantly reduces operating costs and pays back the capital investment within a reasonable timeframe Provides a portfolio of technologies and a flexible infrastructure which allows future modifications & expansion

47 Take Aways and Trends 1. Future flexibility, distribution system is key 2. Diverse portfolio of technologies 3. Reduces annual operating cost, purchased energy footprint, and carbon emissions 4. Integration with existing campus plans

48 Martha Larson, CEM Lee Tapper, PE, CIAQP, LEED AP

49 Questions?