University of Victoria Integrated Energy Masterplan

University of Victoria Integrated Energy Masterplan
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
INTEGRATED ENERGY MASTERPLAN
Date: February 24th 2011
Ref: 11-1309-M01
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
Scope and Objectives
The 2007 University of Victoria Strategic Plan “A Vision for the Future – Building on Strength” identified sustainability
as a strategic priority for the institution.
The University’s Sustainability Action Plan has identified a number of objectives, including the creation of a campus
that utilizes renewable energy sources for its energy needs, and where facilities are built or renovated to meet current
green building standards, and act as physical tools of education for both the campus and broader community. UVic’s
Sustainability Action Plan also sets out its sustainability goals using 2009/10 energy consumption as the baseline.
1.5
Existing Heating Loop
The vast majority of UVic’s natural gas use is by the main boiler plant in ELW serving the campus heating loop. The
loop operates at high temperatures, hindering the integration of low-grade energy sources and high efficient
technologies. Lowering the loop temperature will be prohibitively expensive due to the number of buildings connected
to the loop, and the changes required to the heating systems in each building.
Since the loop must remain in operation, the efficiency of the existing DES system should be improved to maximize
energy and carbon savings. Currently the high loop temperature is maintained throughout the year, regardless of the
climate and each building’s heating demand. The provision of a control feedback loop between each building
connected to the loop and the main boiler plant at ELW will allow the flow rate and water temperature to match
system’s needs more closely, thus saving energy and carbon.
While the Sustainability Action Plan did set measurable energy and carbon goals, UVic realized the need for a
definitive master plan that would define a clear strategy for reaching their goals. In addition, the BC Provincial
Government directive for all public institutions to reduce their carbon emissions from a 2009 baseline, further drove
the need for setting clear quantifiable goals for energy and carbon emission reductions.
1.6
The objective of this study is to devise an Integrated Energy Master Plan to serve as a road map to support UVic in
meeting their targets for energy, carbon and costs.
The currently on-going Continual Optimization Program has identified significant energy savings, achievable with
relatively short paybacks. UVic’s priority should be to complete all three phases of the Continual Optimization
Program over the next one to two years.
1.2
Energy Targets
The University of Victoria has established stringent overall energy use reduction targets and carbon emission
reduction policy as part of their Sustainability Action Plan, and has the ambition to be ahead of its peers in terms of
energy efficient building design. This integrated energy master plan has been developed to act as a road map and
support UVic in meeting these targets.
The proposed energy use of new buildings at UVic are expected to meet the minimum energy performance criteria
defined in the BC Building Code, ASHRAE 90.1 2004. Project specific goals are sometimes set, e.g. LEED Gold, but
this is not applicable to all projects. New Buildings will need to achieve greater energy reductions than required by
current and projected Energy Codes, in all new and existing buildings to meet the energy and carbon reduction
targets.
1.3
UVic’s Current Energy Use
Existing Building Stock
The vast majority of the floor space that will exist in 2020 has already been built; therefore, reducing existing buildings’
energy use is a key element for UVic to meet its carbon and energy reduction targets.
A key element of this program is the installation of end use energy meters to all buildings connected to the district
heating loop. Completing this work will allow UVic to easily identify buildings operating inefficiently, and accurately
identify the domestic hot water load separately from the space heating load, so that summertime base load can be
accurately tracked. This will allow any solar heating panel option to be optimized.
1.7
Potential Low/Zero Carbon Energy Sources
Replacing the existing mid-efficiency gas fired boilers with low and zero carbon solutions will help UVic achieve its
carbon reduction target and increase its renewable energy portfolio.
The feasibility of various solutions were initially assessed and presented in Section 10. Combinations of the most
feasible solutions, gas-fired condensing boilers, solar thermal panels, biomass boilers and biomass CoGen were
assessed in greater detail, presented in Section 11.
2
UVic’s current energy use is better than many of its peers in BC, approximately 17% lower than the NRCAN BC
Universities energy intensity benchmark. However Victoria has one of the mildest climates in BC and so energy use is
expected to be lower than many of its peers in areas outside the lower mainland of BC
From this detailed analysis, the maximum reduction in carbon emissions is achieved by combining a 13,000m solar
thermal array, a 4200kW biomass boiler, and replacing the existing gas fired boiler plant with modern condensing
boilers. The gas-fired boilers will be used to supplement the solar thermal and biomass boiler during the peak winter
months and act as back-up, should the solar thermal system or biomass boiler fail.
Individual Buildings at UVic typically perform between standard and good practice when compared with national and
international benchmarks. The demand for academic and student accommodation is expected to grow at UVic over
the coming years and all new buildings will need to perform with much greater energy efficiency than the current
building stock for UVic to achieve its energy and carbon reduction targets.
A biomass CoGen plant generating electricity as well as heat could be integrated instead of a biomass boiler,
providing further energy and carbon savings. However, biomass CoGen plants required significantly more biomass
than standard biomass boilers, making their financial feasibility more sensitive to the price of biomass fuel. Procuring
a biomass fuel study will confirm the availability of biomass fuel in the vicinity of UVic and the projected fuel price.
1.4
1.8
New Buildings
For new buildings to consistently achieve Good or Best Practice energy benchmarks, energy efficiency needs to be
placed as a key driver of a building’s design. Developing a building design guideline document will allow UVic to
define mandatory performance and prescriptive requirements for the design, construction and renovation of University
owned buildings, helping to support and direct designers in helping UVic achieve their energy targets.
Key Recommendations
1. Produce a Buildings technical design document, outlining UVic’s mandatory performance and
prescriptive requirements for the design, construction and renovation of university owned
buildings.
UVic should also consider incorporating many of the construction design approaches presented in Section 8 into the
design guideline document to maximize energy efficiency.
Page 1-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
2. Complete the Continual Optimization Program Scope of Work to all buildings connected to the
Central Heating Loop
3. Upgrade the controls to the central heating loop and provide a feedback loop from each building
to the central boiler plant.
4. Once the building energy metering installation has been completed, meter the thermal energy use
by end use for one year to redefine the baseline and refine sizing of future energy sources.
5. Procure a biomass fuel study to confirm fuel availability, security and future energy cost
6. Replace the McKinnon and ELW boiler plants at the end of their respective lives with high
efficiency condensing boilers.
7. Install the solar thermal array. The installation can be phased over a number of years; coinciding
with scheduled roof replacements will help reduce mobilization and construction costs.
1.9
Potential Energy use and Carbon Emission Savings
By implementing all of the above recommendations, UVic will reduce their carbon emissions by approximately 40%45%. This reduction is primarily achieved through the provision of a biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
system connected to the existing campus heating loop to offset the current natural gas use.
The implementation of each recommendation can be scheduled to achieve UVic’s carbon emission reduction goals,
assuming sufficient capital/financing is available. Campus growth and campus Master Planning must also be
considered and coordinated with this Integrated Energy Master Plan.
Completing the upgrading the central heating loop controls and replacing the existing boilers in the McKinnon Boiler
room with gas-fired condensing boilers within the next four years, UVic will achieve their short term carbon emission
target of a 20% reduction over the University’s 2007 baseline, by 2015.
Page 1-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
8.5
8.6
8.7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA ............................................................................................................................................1
INTEGRATED ENERGY MASTERPLAN ........................................................................................................................1
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
ENERGY TARGETS ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
UVIC’S CURRENT ENERGY USE ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
NEW BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 1-1
EXISTING HEATING LOOP .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
EXISTING BUILDING STOCK ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
POTENTIAL LOW/ZERO CARBON ENERGY SOURCES ........................................................................................... 1-1
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
POTENTIAL ENERGY USE AND CARBON EMISSION SAVINGS ................................................................................. 1-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3
2
CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 2-1
PROVINCIAL GHG EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS ............................................................................................ 2-1
UVIC EXISTING REDUCTION TARGETS AND POLICY ............................................................................................. 2-1
FUTURE BUILDING AND ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 2-1
FUTURE ENERGY COSTS ................................................................................................................................... 2-2
LOCAL CLIMATE DATA ....................................................................................................................................... 2-3
UVIC’S VISION ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
3.2
ENERGY GOALS ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1
ANTICIPATED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 3-1
4
STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 4-2
5
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................. 5-3
5.1
5.2
6
THE CURRENT SITUATION – UVIC’S BASELINE ............................................................................................. 6-1
6.1
6.2
7
UVIC’S CURRENT ENERGY SOURCES AND CAMPUS DISTRIBUTION ......................................................................... 6-1
UVIC’S ENERGY USE AND CARBON EMISSION STATUS QUO ................................................................................ 6-2
PROVINCIAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ENERGY USE DENSITY BENCHMARK COMPARISON 7-1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
8
OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-3
COST/BENEFIT CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................... 5-4
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 7-1
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS COMPARISON ................................................................................................................... 7-1
LABORATORY BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 7-2
CLASSROOMS ................................................................................................................................................... 7-2
LIBRARIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 7-3
NEW CONSTRUCTION DESIGN APPROACHES AND BENCHMARKS ........................................................... 8-1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 8-1
OPTIMAL DESIGN APPROACHES ......................................................................................................................... 8-1
PASSIVE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 8-3
ACTIVE BUILDING SYSTEMS CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 8-4
9
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION TECHNICAL GUIDELINES .........................................................................8-6
SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................................8-9
RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................8-9
ENERGY REDUCTION OF EXISTING BUILDING STOCK AND CAMPUS HEATING SYSTEM .......................9-1
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
10
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................9-1
CONTINUAL OPTIMIZATION..................................................................................................................................9-1
EXISTING HIGH TEMPERATURE HEATING LOOP....................................................................................................9-2
SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................................9-4
RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................9-4
ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS............................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.6
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
11
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
12
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
13
13.1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 10-1
REVISED BASELINE ..................................................................................................................................... 10-1
ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................................................................. 10-1
CENTRAL NATURAL GAS-FIRED CONDENSING BOILERS................................................................................. 10-2
LOCAL DOMESTIC HOT W ATER HEATERS ..................................................................................................... 10-3
CRD SEWERAGE HEAT RECOVERY.............................................................................................................. 10-4
HEAT RECOVERY FROM ENTERPRISE DATA CENTRE ..................................................................................... 10-5
ENERGY FROM SOLID ORGANIC W ASTE ....................................................................................................... 10-6
AMBIENT DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEMS (DES) ............................................................................................... 10-7
GEOEXCHANGE ........................................................................................................................................... 10-8
BIOMASS HEATING ONLY PLANT ................................................................................................................... 10-9
BIOMASS COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PLANT ........................................................................................... 10-10
W IND ........................................................................................................................................................ 10-11
SOLAR THERMAL ....................................................................................................................................... 10-12
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS ................................................................................................................... 10-13
HYDROGEN FUEL CELL.............................................................................................................................. 10-14
CONCENTRATED SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATION ........................................................................................ 10-15
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 10-16
ENERGY GENERATION COMBINATIONS.................................................................................................... 11-1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 11-1
SOLAR THERMAL ......................................................................................................................................... 11-2
SOLAR THERMAL + CONDENSING BOILERS ................................................................................................... 11-6
BIOMASS BOILER + GAS-FIRED CONDENSING BOILERS ................................................................................. 11-9
BIOMASS + SOLAR THERMAL + CONDENSING GAS-FIRED BOILERS (BACK-UP) .............................................. 11-13
BIOMASS (COGEN) + CONDENSING BOILERS .............................................................................................. 11-17
AMBIENT HEATING LOOP WITH W ATER TO W ATER HEAT PUMPS .................................................................. 11-21
OPTIONS MATRIX ...................................................................................................................................... 11-23
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 12-25
ENERGY TARGETS .................................................................................................................................... 12-25
UVIC’S CURRENT ENERGY USE ................................................................................................................. 12-25
NEW BUILDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 12-25
EXISTING HEATING LOOP........................................................................................................................... 12-25
EXISTING BUILDING STOCK ........................................................................................................................ 12-25
POTENTIAL LOW/ZERO CARBON ENERGY SOURCES ................................................................................... 12-25
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 12-25
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................................... 12-26
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................. 13-27
SUMMARY OF CANADIAN UNIVERSITY’S SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY PLANS .............................................. 13-27
Page 1-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
14
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................. 14-29
15
APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................................. 15-30
16
APPENDIX D – NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ENERGY BENCHMARKS ........................................ 16-32
16.1
16.2
UNITED STATES ........................................................................................................................................ 16-32
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ............................................................................................................................. 16-33
17
APPENDIX E – SUPPORTING INFORMATION REALTING TO CRD’S SEWAGE HEAT RECOVERY
FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................................................................................................................................... 17-35
Page 1-4
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
2 CONTEXT
The 2007 University of Victoria Strategic Plan “A Vision for the Future – Building on Strength” identified
sustainability as a strategic priority for the institution.
The university recognizes that sustainability is a commitment to future generations and requires the collective
action of the university community through long term planning, shared learning, grassroots activities and
institutional leadership.
2.2
Provincial GHG Emission Reduction Targets
As per the Province of British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Reductions Target Act, GHGRTA (Bill 44, 2007),
the reduction target levels for the Province of British Columbia are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
6% below 2007 levels by 2012
18% below 2007 levels by 2016
33% below 2007 levels by 2020
80% below 2007 levels by 2050
The GHGRTA also requires that all public sector organizations, including UVic, be carbon neutral in their
operations beginning in 2010 and thereafter. To become Carbon Neutral, organizations must compile an
emissions inventory, reduce emissions with specific reduction measures, and for any remaining emissions,
purchase carbon credit offsets. A net zero level of emissions can be achieved by the combination of
reductions along with the offsets to eventually reach the overall target of 100% reduction.
As of 2010, UVic is committed to being carbon neutral by minimizing carbon emissions and purchasing
carbon offsets when necessary in order to achieve equivalent 100% emissions reduction.
Carbon offsets are generated through projects that reduce carbon emissions or remove carbon from the
atmosphere within the Province of BC, as mandated by GHGRTA (Bill 44). These projects must comply with
specific criteria, including the requirement that the offset is recognized as being above and beyond standard
practices.
2.3
UVic Existing Reduction Targets and Policy
The University’s Sustainability Action Plan has identified a number of objectives, including the creation of a
campus that utilizes renewable energy sources for its energy needs, and where facilities are built or
renovated to meet current green building standards, and act as physical tools of education for both the
campus and broader community.
UVic’s Sustainability Action Plan also sets out its sustainability goals using 2009/10 energy consumption as
the baseline, including the following:
•
•
•
•
Become carbon neutral by 2010.
Reduce overall campus electricity consumption by 20%, by 2015.
Reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2007 baseline by 2015
Increase UVic’s renewable energy portfolio
2.4
Future Building and Energy Code Requirements
Until recently, BC Building Code did not reference any energy standards/requirements for building energy
efficiency. In 2008 BCBC Green Building Code revisions, the Province of BC has adopted ASHRAE 90.12004 as the building energy efficiency standard for all new construction. ASHRAE continues to revise the
standard, typically every three years, and ASHRAE 90.1 2010 is expected to mandate energy use reductions
of 30% from ASHRAE 90.1 2004.
Federal Government of Canada has established a standard known as MNECB (Model National Energy Code
for Buildings) which in principle follows the same methodology as ASHRAE 90.1 standard with the only
difference that the prescriptive parameters are defined for Canadian climate regions. The last version of
MNECB was issued in 1997 and is outdated by current requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 2007
standards.
An updated version of the MNECB is due to be published in 2011 and expected to be 30-35% more stringent
than MNECB 1997 or 18.5% more stringent than ASHRAE 90.1: 2004. It is intended to address overall
energy use irrespective of energy source and will be potentially included in the next BC Building Code in
2012.
The projected savings from both ASHRAE 90.1 and MNECB are graphically presented in Figure 2-1.
NOTE: dashed line represents predicted energy savings.
Year
1995
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
10
2020
0
5
20
10
30
40
15
50
20
60
70
25
80
30
90
100
35
ASHRAE 90.1 (Energy)
MNECB/NECB (Energy)
BC Building Code (Energy)
BC GHGRTA (Carbon)
Carbon Emission % Decrease from Baseline
The University of Victoria has a long history of leadership in sustainability. Over the past few decades the
campus has received international attention for the commitment to green campus operations, interdisciplinary
research, real life learning opportunities, and innovative community partnerships.
Reduce campus overall water consumption by 25% by 2015.
The Plan also identifies the anticipated benefits to the university and the wider community of reducing carbon
emissions through improved energy efficiency and renewable sources.
Background Information
Energy Code % Decrease from Baseline
2.1
•
Figure 2-1 ASHRAE 90.1, NECB, BC Building Code and BC GHGRTA Targets
Page 2-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
1
It is unclear, at present, if the 2012 version of the BC Building Code will reference a new energy standard,
and if so, which one. It has been assumed that it will adopt the 2010 version.
The Provincial GHG Emission Reduction Targets have been included for information. Although no direct
comparison can be made with energy use reduction percentages, the difference in gradient highlights the
need for UVic convert to a low or zero carbon energy sources to meet its targets in addition to achieving
energy use reductions.
2.5
2.5.1
Future Energy Costs
Natural Gas
Figure 2-2 Natural Gas Prices - Historical and 5-year Forecast
2.5.2
Electricity
There is very little published information regarding the forecast of electricity prices in BC. However, electricity prices
were increased by 8% in BC, in 2011 and were this to continue, could have risen by over 40% during the next 5 years.
It is publicly known that BC Hydro’s capacity is being stretched and that the growing future demand will need to be
met by a combination of improvements in end use efficiencies to reduce the existing demand and by building new
power generation facilities, i.e. site “C”.
Also it is known that BC Hydro has been applying for electricity rate increase and that the actual electricity rate
increase trend has been curbed by the government.
Historical natural gas prices have fluctuated over the past 15 year, as shown in Figure 2-2. The 15 year average gas
over the 15 year period has remained relatively constant; in recent years, gas prices have been falling.
Whilst it is difficult to predict the future energy cost trend, the continuation of the most recent price reduction trend is
likely to be unrealistic. With the recovery of the economy and the growing global demand on the world’s fossil fuel
resources, prices are likely to increase, as a general trend. Prior to 2001, natural gas had been increasing at 5% per
year on average.
1
http://www.sproule.com/Price-Curves#t2 – Natural Gas Forecasts as of January, 2011.
Page 2-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
2.6
Local Climate Data
Psychrometric Chart
Comprehensive hourly weather data is available for Victoria City Centre, which is located just South West of the
University of Victoria. Given the close proximity and geographic similarity the Victoria weather data also
accurately represents the local climate of the University of Victoria.
© W eather T ool
AH
Location: Victoria Int'l, CAN
Frequency: 1st January to 31st December
Weekday Times: 00:00-24:00 Hrs
Weekend Times: 00:00-24:00 Hrs
Barometric Pressure: 101.36 kPa
30
Victoria is located at sea level on the south-eastern tip of the Pacific coast of Vancouver Island, British
Columbia. In general, Victoria has a temperate climate with mild temperatures and moderate humidity levels
year round. Summers are comfortably warm and dry with large “diurnal” temperatures and winters are relatively
mild with high levels of precipitation. This weather pattern is due to the combination of the nearby Pacific Ocean
and the protection from the cold continental winter offered by the Coast Mountains rising abruptly from the
ocean immediately across the Georgia Strait. The following table shows the average minimum and maximum
air temperatures for Victoria during the coldest month (January) and the hottest month (August) using Victoria
data.
25
20
15
January
August
10
Average Minimum
Average Maximum
Average Minimum
Average Maximum
0.5°C
6.2°C
13.2°C
21.9°C
5
Comfort
Table 2-1: Victoria Average Temperatures
Because Victoria is on the Pacific Northwest coast and it rains frequently, common misconception refers to this
region as being “humid.” However, only Victoria’s relative humidity is consistently high during winter season, not
its absolute humidity. When high relative humidity coincides with low air temperatures, the absolute amount of
moisture in the air is still low.
DBT(°C)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 2-3: Psychometric chart of air temperature and humidity for Victoria
Victoria receives moderate levels of solar radiation during spring, summer and fall making the integration of
renewable systems to capture solar energy potentially feasible. The prevailing wind direction is from the west.
The peak outdoor design temperatures for Victoria as defined by the BC Building Code and ASHRAE Standard
90.1 are shown in Table 2 below.
Victoria Outdoor Design
BCBC
ASHRAE
Winter Dry Bulb Temperature, 1%
-9°C
-8°C
Summer Dry Bulb Temperature, 1%
26°C
23°C
Summer Wet-Bulb Temperature (max coincident with 23°C dry-bulb)
19°C
18°C
Table 2-2: Victoria Outdoor Design Temperatures
2
Figure 2-4: Victoria temperature and solar weather profile
2
In general, ASHRAE 90.1 is used in the US, and the Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (MNECB) is used in Canada.
However, local Canadian jurisdictions can choose to supersede MNECB, as Vancouver has done by adopting ASHRAE 90.1.
Page 2-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
3 UVIC’S VISION
3.1
Energy Goals
In addition to achieving the carbon reduction goals outlined in the Sustainability Action Plan, UVic wants to
demonstrate creativity and innovation, and be well known for sustainability and low energy buildings.
UVic also has the ambition to be ahead of its peers in terms of improved building design and reduced energy
use, further supporting its leading edge philosophy.
As a comparison, Vancouver Island University have set specific conservation targets for 2010/11, which are
to achieve a 10% reduction in electricity, primarily through behavior change, and a 3.3% reduction in natural
gas consumption by revising standards and operating protocols.
As a comparison, UBC, considered a leader in sustainability and energy reduction amongst Canadian high
education institutions has set targets for GHG reduction at its Vancouver Campus and raising the bar above
previously documented goals.
UBC aims to:
•
•
•
3.2
Anticipated future development
UVic’s Campus Plan sets out the future land use and infrastructure development.
The demand for academic facilities and student accommodation at UVic is likely to grow over the next twenty
years. Student enrolment is anticipated to grow at an average of 2% per year and its envisaged that a further
2
150,000m of new floor area could be accommodated on campus, based upon the current Campus Plan
direction.
A new athletic training facility will be built, with construction starting in 2012, and include a gym and multistorey parkade. A swimming pool will be added in a subsequent phase. It is proposed to connect this new
facility to the existing district energy system.
The University also anticipates the need for the residential area on campus to increase over the next 10
years.
Future growth makes achieving targets harder. Even with these plans for future development, the majority of
the floor space existing in 2020 has already been built and highlights the need for existing buildings to be
incorporated in any future energy consumption reduction plans.
Reduce GHGs to 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2015
Reduce GHGs to 67 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020
Reduce GHGs to 100 per cent below 2007 levels by 2050
They are intending to achieve their targets through the conversion of their campus heating distribution system
from steam to hot water with some conversions in many buildings to reduce the return water temperature.
They are also introducing a biomass fueled cogeneration system to eventually replace their existing central
gas-fired steam boiler plant and carry out continuous improvement and retro-commissioning of existing
buildings.
In addition to requiring all buildings on campus to achieve a 42% reduction from a MNECB 1997 performance
level, UBC are currently developing a sliding scale of absolute energy density targets, from the maximum
energy density allowed to achieve UBC’s current requirements to an aggressive target, incorporating national
and international best and pioneering practices. These targets will form UBC’s future energy requirements
and will be set out in their Technical Guidelines.
The majority of these energy conservation approaches are potentially viable at UVic’s Gordon Head campus
and their feasibility will be assessed as part of this study.
A detailed summary of Canadian universities’ sustainability and energy strategies is setout in Appendix A.
Page 3-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
4 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study is to develop an Integrated Energy Master Plan for the University of Victoria,
Gordon Head Campus, to help meet or exceed UVic’s energy use and greenhouse gas emission reduction
goals.
The Master Plan shall be a high level strategic plan for how to incorporate new energy sources, capture waste
heat and achieve energy use reductions, evaluate the potential for peak energy demand reductions, and the
feasibility of energy supply options.
Appropriate cost/benefit criteria shall be defined and a decision matrix developed to assess each potential
option. The viable options shall be assessed in further detail to develop appropriate timelines for their
integration and allow investment grade decisions.
Figure 4-1 University of Victoria's Gordon Head Campus
Page 4-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
5 METHODOLOGY
5.1
Overview
Three core elements will be developed in this study to produce a complete, integrated energy master plan for UVic.
They are:
1. New Construction and renovation design approach and energy benchmarks (See Section 8)
2. Energy use reduction of existing building stock (See Section 9)
3. Campus wide energy use reduction strategies (See Section 10)
Prior to developing these elements, it is important to gain an understanding of the existing energy situation at UVic,
which has been analyzed in the following three sections (Sections 6, 7 and 8)
In summary, the following methodology was used to develop the integrated energy master plan for the University of
Victoria:
1. Discovery Phase – Develop an understanding of the status quo at UVic.
2. Confirm the ‘business–as-usual’ scenario and UVic’s future plans and growth projections. Compare
UVic’s energy consumption to that of its peers. Evaluate the local microclimate as part of the local
context research.
3. Develop suitable cost benefit criteria to assess the feasibility of potential option, systems and
technologies.
4. Assess potential to reduce energy use of existing buildings and campus wide energy distribution
system.
5. Identify effective (optimal) design approaches and tools that can be used by UVic to shift towards
energy efficient new construction and renovation design and energy use benchmarks for future
buildings.
6. Identify campus wide energy use reduction strategies. These can be split into two main groups:
i.
Recover Energy – assess potential to capture waste energy form buildings and campus to
offset demand for heat from central plant or grid electricity.
ii.
Renewable Energy – Identify and investigate technically viable solutions and review their
financial feasibility for application at UVic
7. Combine complementary technologies and systems into optimal solution combinations. Assess
business case of each combination.
Page 5-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
5.2
Cost/Benefit Criteria
5.2.3
Before beginning the assessment process of the options relating to the core options, it is important to define UVic’s
priorities through the development of suitable cost benefit criteria against which the viability of each option, system
and technology can be assessed.
Payback period
The time taken to recover the initial capital investment is defined as the payback period. The simple payback
period of capital cost divided by yearly energy cost savings will be calculated for all technologies. Through
discussions with UVic, the following payback period criteria have been developed:
The following criteria have been developed through discussion with the key stakeholders at UVic including Facilities,
Finance and Sustainability offices.
The payback period is less than 7 years
In order to make this relatively complex assessment easier to understand and navigate through, we have come up
with the following green/yellow/red graphical evaluation:
5.2.1
The payback period is greater than 7 years, but less than 15 years
Commercial Availability
How commercially available is the technology?
The technology is readily available and many installations have
been completed. Experience in the industry is high
The technology is commercially available but not yet established
in local market, with a low number of completed installations.
The industry’s experience is limited to a number of specialist
contractors.
The payback is greater than 15 years
Technologies with a payback period greater than 15 years could still be considered as showcase projects if
they provide educational, social and other non-energy related benefits to the university.
5.2.4
Retrofit applicability
Can the technology easily be applied as a retrofit to existing buildings?
The technology is considered to be pioneering and not yet
commercially available in local market, with only showcase
projects completed.
5.2.2
Carbon Emission Reduction Potential
How-effective is the technology at reducing carbon emissions at UVic?
The carbon emission reduction potential of each measure or technology can be established by multiplying the
potential energy use savings by the carbon intensity of the fuel source. This weight of carbon emissions can
then be divided by the total carbon emissions for that fuel type to calculate the expected saving.
Carbon Emission Reduction Potential is greater than 30%
With at least 80% of the today’s buildings expected to remain in existence past 2050, the retrofit applicability
and ease of implementation of any technology is an important factor to determine its feasibility for application
at UVic. Integrating energy use reduction measures into existing buildings also offers the greatest opportunity
for energy use reduction to be realized in the short term.
The technology can easily be applied to existing buildings with
only minor disruption to the building’s operation and relatively
minor cost.
The technology can be applied to existing buildings with only
moderate disruption to the building’s operation and moderate cost.
The technology can be applied to existing buildings but major
disruption to the building’s operations is likely to be required and
significant cost.
Carbon Emission Reduction Potential between 11% and 29%
Carbon Emission Reduction Potential less than 10%
Technologies with low carbon emission reduction potential may still be worth pursuing if their payback period
is short, and if they provide educational, social and other non-carbon related benefits to the university.
Page 5-4
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
5.2.5
Early implementation potential
Can the technology be incorporated in the immediate future?
UVic’s sustainability goals include a milestone target for 20% reduction in electricity use and green house gas
emissions by 2015. Technologies and strategies which have the potential to be implemented prior to 2015
should be considered as a priority.
The technology can be implemented prior to 2013
The technology can be implemented by 2015
The technology can only be implemented after 2015
5.2.6
Funding Availability
Is funding available for the technology/system?
Municipal, Provincial, National and private utility (Fortis BC, BC Hydro) funding may potentially be available to
support the detailed feasibility analysis and a portion of the capital cost.
Funding is available for over 25% of the capital cost
Funding is available up to and including 25% of the capital cost
No funding is available
5.2.7
Maintenance, Operation and staffing cost
Is additional maintenance, operation or staffing costs incurred by implementing a technology or
strategy, over and above UVic’s existing commitments?
No additional maintenance cost
Minimal additional maintenance cost
Significant additional maintenance cost
Page 5-5
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
6 THE CURRENT SITUATION – UVIC’S BASELINE
6.1
UVic’s current energy sources and campus distribution
6.1.1
Electricity
The main Gordon Head campus at UVic is served by 11 electrical utility meters with one main electrical meter
at the main transformers accounting for approximately 93% of the campus’ total electrical consumption.
In addition to the main revenues meter, the majority of the buildings on campus are independently metered
via the Schneider Ion metering system, allowing individual Building Energy Performance Indicators (BEPIs) to
be developed.
The campus’ electrical use is approaching the limit of the existing BC Hydro feed to the transformers and a
second feed is being installed to accommodate future growth on the campus.
UVic have agreed with BC Hydro to reduce their electrical use across the campus, and will incur financial
penalties if consumption is higher than a pre-agreed baseline. The peak capacity of the main transformers is
6.5MW.
UVic currently pays the following rates to BC Hydro:
There are four gas fired boiler plants linked to UVic’s Campus “District Energy System” (DES); the main plant,
and newest (installed in 1995, approximately 16 years old) is located in the Engineering Laboratory Wing
(ELW) building, and smaller ancillary plants in the Clearihue, McKinnon, and Commons.
The ELW boiler room contains four 4100kW Volcano gas-fired boilers (Total capacity = 16MW) and can meet
the majority of the campus’ heat demand throughout the year. The boilers and corresponding pumps are
connected in parallel, and all pump motors have variable speed drives. The boilers have remaining an
anticipated life expectancy of approximately 10 years.
During the peak heating season, the McKinnon boiler supports the ELW plant to maintain the heating loop
temperatures. The remaining two boiler plants have not been needed during recent winters but are kept on
o
o
standby at approximately 90 C (200 F) through the year. The overall boiler efficiency has been assumed to
be approximately 70%.
Heating water is distributed across campus via 300mm diameter supply and return loops.
Heat exchangers within each building interface with the DES and transfer heat to secondary piping loops
within the building.
th
Basic charge
= $0.17160/day
Energy Cost for first 14800kWh
Energy Cost for second remaining use
= $0.0815/kWh
= $0.03930/kWh
Demand first 35 kW
Demand second 115 kW
Demand remaining kW
= $0.00/kW
= $4.18/kW
= $8.02/kW
A rate rider cost of 2.5% is applied to the total of all charges before tax, and sales tax at 12% (HST) is applied
to the final amount.
In 2010/11 UVic were charged a total average $0.056/kWh for electricity
6.1.2
Space heating and domestic hot water heating are primarily provided to the Gordon Head campus via a
campus hot water heating loop. The loop is fed from one large central heating plant and is supplemented by
three smaller ancillary plants also contacted to the campus heating loop. The remaining demand use is further
broken down into categories of stand-alone building heating systems, residences, domestic heating water,
labs, cooking and external properties.
Natural Gas
There are over sixty natural gas meters on campus, but 80% of the campus’ gas is consumed by the heating
plant serving the district heating system, which consists of four main boiler rooms, each with their own gas
meter. The remainder of the meters is typically for small gas connections serving stand-alone building heating
systems, residences, domestic heating water, labs, and cooking.
UVic is currently charged by Fortis BC at a rate of $12.015 per Gigajoule (GJ) of natural gas use
($0.043/kWh) and a carbon tax at $0.9932/GJ of use ($0.003/kWh). Sales tax at 12% (HST) is applied to
both rates.
o
o
During a tour of the site on April 11 , 2011, the heating loop temperatures were recorded at 105 C - 115 C
o
o
(200 F – 240 F). It was originally thought that the high loop temperatures were required to eliminate a flue gas
condensation issue but this has since been clarified. Certain buildings’ uses on campus require high
temperature water year round and building heat exchangers have been sized accordingly.
o
The DES was reportedly designed to operate at a 22 C temperature difference between the supply and
return. Initially the corresponding flow rate was found to be too low for effective heat transfer within the boilers
o
and so the temperature difference was reduced to 9 C to provide the required flow rate through the boilers.
The issue was identified as water bypassing the boilers through the down-comer tubes on the boilers. This
has now been fixed.
Flue gas heat recovery is currently not provided on any of the boilers. The flue gas temperature was recorded
o
o
at 220 C (430 F) and is a significant source of waste heat that has the potential to be recovered. However,
due to the short life expectancy of the boilers, flue gas heat recovery has not been investigated due to being
economically unviable.
There are known issues with lack of individual control and heat energy metering of certain buildings. The
secondary pumps and valves serving a number of buildings do not communicate back to the main DDC
controls serving the boiler plant. Due to the lack of individual building heat meters, it has, until recently, been
impossible to provide accurate picture of the thermal consumption on campus and provide Building Energy
Performance Indices. Installation of heat meters to 29 of the campus’ major buildings has been progressing
as part of BC Hydro’s Multi Building Continuing Optimization Program.
6.1.4
Water/Sewer
In 2010/11 UVic were charged a total average of $13.9/GJ ($0.05/kWh) for gas.
There are fourteen metered incoming water mains serving the campus, typically coordinated with the main
road access points, with two meters (Gordon Head ‐ Midgard and Sinclair Clarndon) providing 82% of all
water entering the campus. The majority of buildings are currently not sub‐metered and therefore, water
consumption for a per building basis cannot be determined.
6.1.3
UVic is currently charged by the Oak Bay and Saanich at a rate of $1.153 per m of potable consumption.
District Heating System
3
Page 6-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
The sanitary drains from the buildings on the west side of campus by gravity, to the west, and collect at a
sewer pumping station near Midgard Avenue. From the pumping station, the sewage is pumped to the east
and exits the campus along Haro Road. On the east side of campus a single gravity sanitary main serves the
buildings and exits the campus to east along Finnerty Road.
3
35,000
30,000
3
UVic is currently charged by Saanich at a rate of $0.665 per m for sewer discharge and $0.394 per m for
sewage treatment. Sales tax at 12% (HST) is applied to both rates.
25,000
20,000
6.2
UVic’s Energy Use and Carbon Emission Status Quo
15,000
UVic has achieved its target to be carbon emission neutral by 2010 through the purchase of carbon offsets.
Based on a rate of $25/tonne, in 2010, UVic’s carbon offset cost was approximately $429,000, based on a
rate of $25/tonne of CO2 emitted, equating to 17,160 tonnes of CO2.
10,000
5,000
As part of implementing their strategic plan, UVic has implemented an Energy Manager Program, providing a
full-time staff member whose role is to lead energy and emissions planning and energy project
implementation. UVic have also enrolled in BC Hydro’s Continuous Optimization Program to undertake retrocommissioning and improve the energy efficiency of key buildings on Campus.
0
Whilst UVic does not have its own building technical standards, it does require all new buildings to be
designed such that mechanical cooling is minimized, apart from specific areas such as computer server
rooms.
Baseline Gas Use (GJ)
The following sections present the current energy performance, both campus wide and certain individual
buildings.
6000000
Campus wide energy and water use
st
st
UVic’s energy targets are referenced against a base year from April 1 2009 to March 31 , 2010, known as
the 2009 base year. The energy use during this base year was reviewed as part of this study to provide the
context for the development of the Integrated Energy Master Plan.
The consumption and utility cost during 2009 is summarized in table 1
Utility
Consumption
(Apr 1/09 to Mar 31/10)
Costs
Unit
Electricity
kWh
55,014,558
$3,104,966
39 %
Natural Gas
GJ
71,595,017
$3,593,078
47 %
689,192
$1,152,480
14 %
$7,850,524
100%
Water
3
M
Total
Table 6-1: 2009/10 utility consumption and cost
From this information, the Building Energy Performance Indices (BEPI) for gas and electricity use can be
2
calculated for the gross building area of the campus, and are approximately 200kWh/m .yr of gas and 153
2
kWh/m .yr of electricity. In mild climates like Victoria’s, electrical consumption would typically dominate, and
since 80% of the gas is used by the campus heating system, heating system efficiency improvements have
the potential to achieve the most significant reductions.
Electircal Consumption (kWh)
6.2.1
Figure 6-1: UVic’s Baseline Natural Gas Use, kWh
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'Baseline Electircal Consumption, kWh
Figure 6-2: UVic’s Baseline Electrical COn2009/10 electricity Use
Page 6-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
In 2002, Prism Engineering conducted a walk-through Energy Audit to determine energy and water savings
potential. As part of this analysis, an estimated breakdown of the gas and electrical consumption by end use
was developed illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Even though the university has expanded during the following
years, these breakdowns are likely to still be valid.
A full year on from the base year has only just passed, and the final quarter results are not available at
present, but the anticipated trend in energy consumption can be inferred.
Electrical consumption has begun to decline during 2010/11 and is attributed to the implementation of the
Energy Manager program, the “turn off the lights” user awareness sticker project, two workplace awareness
programs and a Christmas holiday temperature setback initiative.
Gas consumption is also projected to decline during 2010/11, potentially by 9%, again attributed to the energy
manager program and temperature setback initiatives.
Implementing the cost effective improvements proposed by the Continuing Optimization Program will help to
achieve further reductions over the next few years, and beyond.
Water consumption has been in decline over recent years despite significant growth in student population and
building footprint. However, UVic remains the largest consumer of fresh water in the district (CRD). Water
consumption has continued to decline since the base year and will continue to decline by operational changes
to the Outdoor Aquatic Centre, which consumes water at a rate of 65 US GPM continuously throughout the
year, and tempers the water as required.
A recent plumbing fixture audit has been completed and includes recommendations to replace all “once
through” Cooling Equipment with air cooled, and replace a third of the toilets with water efficient models.
Compressed Air
2%
Cooling: Space
0%
Exhaust Fans
1%
Htg : Swimming Pool
0%
Receptacles
Interior and Exterior
Lighting
34%
Space Heating
(incl. pumps)
11%
Other
8%
Domestic Hot Water
22%
Heating Space
43%
Summer Reheat
6%
1%
Refrigeration
2%
Air Distribution
21%
Other Equipment
2%
Unaccounted
19%
Ventilation
29%
Office Equipment
7%
Figure 6-3: Campus Wide Electrical breakdown by end use (2002)
3
Adapted from Prism Engineering’s Walk-Through Energy Audit, 2002
Figure 6-4: Campus Wide Natural Gas breakdown by End use (2002)
3
4
4
Adapted from Prism Engineering’s Walk-Through Energy Audit, 2002
Page 6-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
6.2.2
The base electrical load is approximately 50% of the peak, which is relatively high for a building
containing mainly classrooms and offices. A review of the occupancy schedules for the HVAC and lighting
should be considered to ascertain to reason for this high base load.
Building Specific Energy Use
As discussed above, a lack of operational metering on an individual building basis for thermal energy and water
limits the analysis, and comprehensive building specific BEPI figures cannot be calculated. This is being
corrected through the Continuous Optimization Program by replacing old, inaccurate heat meters and adding
new meters to twenty six of the main buildings on campus.
Heat metering data exists for some buildings as well as electrical meter data from the campus wide Schneider
Ion system and is described below. Prism Engineering also developed estimated individual building BEPI
figures in 2002; refer to Appendix A. Graphical representations of the meter data for each building discussed
below is located in Appendix B.
The heating water base load is approximately 10% of the peak and occurs during July and August which
is typical for a building of this type and occupancy.
6.2.2.4
Human and Social Development Building
The Human and Social Development Building accommodates the schools of child and youth care,
nursing, social work, health information science and public administration, as well as the Indigenous
Governance and Studies in Policy and Practice programs.
The HSD building houses three computer labs and a classroom with tele-conferencing capabilities
6.2.2.1
Petch
2
The BEPI figure for HSD is 192 kWh/m .yr
Built in 1986, the Petch Building is home to department of biochemistry and microbiology, the
interdisciplinary centre for biomedical research, the centre for earth and ocean research, and the school
of earth and ocean sciences.
Only a snap shot of electrical meter data is available for this building at present.
Petch’s peak electricity consumption is 475kW, during occupied hours. The electrical consumption during
unoccupied hours gives an indication of the base load, i.e. the amount of electricity constantly used
through the whole year. At Petch the base load is approximately 340kW, over 70% of the peak load,
indicating that the majority of electrical systems in the building operate on a 24/7 basis, 365 days of the
year. The continuous operation of the mechanical ventilation system is likely to be the significant
contributor to the high, consistent, electrical use. Any potential changes to the operation schedule of the
mechanical system are likely to result in a significant reduction in electricity use.
6.2.2.2
The electrical base load during unoccupied hours is approximately 23% of the peak, and the heating use
is approximately 5% of the peak. The electrical profile shows a significant decrease in electrical use
during the weekends and unoccupied hours indicating the building is well controlled and appropriate
occupancy schedules has been applied.
6.2.2.5
McPherson Library
The McPherson Library (LIB) contains UVic's library holdings. Also located in the McPherson Library
building are the university archives, special collections and map library. The McPherson Library was
originally constructed in 1964 as a four-storey building, with a major addition in 1974. The original building
was used solely as the university library and later additions accommodated audio-visual services and
provided temporary space for various academic and administrative units
2
The BEPI figure for LIB is 202 kWh/m .yr
Elliott
The Elliott building houses the departments of physics, astronomy, and chemistry. The three-storey
laboratory and four-storey office and research wing was built in 1963, and the Elliott lecture theatre was
constructed the following year. The Elliott building was one of the first built on campus and is topped by
the Climenhaga observatory.
The electrical base load during unoccupied hours is approximately 27% of the peak.
Again, only a snap shot of electrical meter data is available for this building at present.
At Elliott, The average base electrical load is approximately 98% of the peak during the week, which is
very high, even for a building of this type. The noticeable drop in electrical use, albeit by only two kWs,
shown on the electrical use profile in Appendix B coincides with the weekend. The operation of the
building should be reviewed and any differences between week day and weekend operation should be
investigated.
6.2.2.3
Social Sciences and Mathematics
The Social Sciences & Mathematics (SSM) building was completed in 2008 and houses four academic
units and a research centre; Geography, Environmental Studies, Political Science, Mathematics and
Statistics and the Water & Climate Impact Research Centre (W-CIRC). It mainly consists of classrooms
and offices. It was the third campus facility to earn Gold-level status in the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating Standards program.
2
The BEPI figure for SSM is 155 kWh/m .yr
Page 6-4
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
7 PROVINCIAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ENERGY USE DENSITY
BENCHMARK COMPARISON
7.1
7.2
University Campus Comparison
UVic’s Gordon Head Campus energy use intensity is nearly 17% less energy than the NRCAN British
Columbia benchmark for Universities, and can be explained by the milder climate in Victoria compared to
more northern and eastern part of the Province. UVic’s energy use is comparable with its local peers, UBC
and SFU, and approximately 12% higher than VIU.
Introduction
At UVic, a building’s expected energy demand must meet the minimum performance criteria defined in the
current BC Building Code further referring to the Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings
(MNECB) and ASHRAE 90.1.
kWh/m2.yr
350
300
250
200
150
100
Total
50
Thermal
0
NRCan
CBECS
Simon Fraser University
University of Victoria
University of British Columbia
CIBSE
Vancouver Island University
An alternative to the prescriptive and reference model methodologies is the “energy use intensity”
performance target. Establishing a building energy efficiency target for each type of building in a specific
climate in clear and measurable terms is a fundamental prerequisite of successful climate adapted design.
This alternate methodology of prescribing minimum building energy performance in terms of maximum
allowable energy use intensity (e.g. in kWh/m2 year for a specific building type in a specific climate), which
has already been implemented in several European countries, including Denmark and France, can actually
lead to greater freedom in architecture and system design, while ensuring genuine improvements in energy
performance.
400
College of the Desert, Palm
Springs
The standards fall short of what is being achieved in other parts of the world and what is possible in Victoria’s
climate. The methodologies set out in ASHRAE 90.1 and MNECB to define a building’s energy performance
are essentially identical and have a number of shortcomings. One of their key shortfalls is that they create a
“moveable” and “non-specific” energy performance target. Neither of these two standards prescribes building
energy performance in clear, straightforward and measurable energy use units. Instead, both of these
standards prescribe minimum acceptable building energy performance in indirect, non-energy specific terms
such as: thermal performance of building envelope assemblies, minimum equipment efficiencies, lighting and
occupant densities, etc. Both standards rely on a comparison between a “proposed” and theoretical
“reference” building performance which can only be defined by detailed energy modeling of each specific
building. The comparison is also based upon “energy cost” instead of “energy use” and adds an additional
layer of complexity by reflecting the building’s blend of energy sources, another variable typically inconsistent
between different buildings. This makes it impossible to meaningfully compare the energy performance of
two different buildings, or determine how the proposed building compares to the “best possible” building
energy performance in a given climate.
450
Electrical
Figure 7-1: Comparison of EUI fro selected University Campuses
Relevant National and International energy use intensity benchmarks have been identified to provide a clear
comparison with buildings at UVic summarised in the follow sections. The energy density benchmark figures
from each organisation are set out in Appendix D.
The benchmarks are typically based on surveys of existing buildings and analysis of the resulting data, with
the lower energy intensities being used to define the Best Practice benchmark to generally reflect buildings
that have proven low energy consumption compared to similar buildings. Good and Best Practice buildings
are typically designed to exceed Code minimum and consider a building’s energy use at the start of the
design process.
For the campus and three key building occupancy types (Labs, Classroom and Library, for which UVic
historical data was available), UVic’s relevant building BEPI data, referenced in Section 7.2 was compared
with the national and international benchmarks referenced above. The salient points are summarised in the
relevant sections below, and a bar chart is provided at the end of each section for easy reference.
It is important to note that, due to local climate differences, energy cost variations, etc., the primary fuel
source mix-used by buildings will differ between regions and countries. To avoid confusion, only the total
“purchased” energy of the buildings, irrespective of their fuel type is recommended for comparison (kWhe).
Page 7-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Laboratory Buildings
UVic’s Engineering Laboratory Wing uses nearly 50% less energy than Lab 21 buildings and 25% less energy
than lab buildings designed to HEEPI’s typical practice benchmark. Engineering Laboratory Wing (ELW)
consumes over 40% more energy than buildings designed to international ‘good and ‘best’ practice
benchmarks.
kWh/m2.yr
7.3
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Thermal
Labs 21 (*2)
Univeristy of Hawaii Lab/Class (*2)
HEEPI - Typical Practice (*2)
Engineering Lab Wing (1*)
HEEPI - Good Practice (*2)
CIBSE - Typical (*2)
CIBSE - Good (*2)
HEEPI - Best Practice (*2)
Electrical
1* - Actual measured data; 2*-Benchmarks
Figure 7-2: Laboratory Building Energy Use Benchmark Comparison
7.4
400
Classrooms
350
While very few buildings at UVic solely contain classrooms, buildings such as Human and Social
Development (HSD), and Social Sciences and Mathematics (SSM) containing mostly classroom space,
provide an indication of performance and are comparable with international Good Practice. SSM consumes
50% more energy than international Best Practice, and HSD nearly 60% more.
kWh/m2.yr
300
250
200
150
100
50
Thermal
0
HEEPI - Teaching - Typical
Practice (*2)
CIBSE - Lecture Room - Typical
Practice (*2)
Univeristy of Hawaii Class/office (*2)
CIBSE - Lecture Room, science Good Practice (*2)
Human and Social
Development (1*)
Social Sciences and
Mathematics (1*)
HEEPI - Teaching - Good
Practice (*2)
HEEPI - Teaching - Best Practice
(*2)
Electrical
Figure 7-3 Classroom Building Energy Benchmark Comparison
Page 7-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
7.5
Libraries
The energy use of the Mearns - McPherson library at UVic is comparable with international ‘typical’ practice
benchmarks for naturally ventilated buildings and nearly 55% better than typical air conditioned libraries in the
UK, as indicated by CIBSE benchmarks.
The Mearns-McPheson Library consumes 25% more energy than international Best Practice benchmarks.
700
kWh/m2.yr
600
500
400
300
200
100
Thermal
0
CIBSE -Library (Air Conditioned)
- Typical Practice (*2)
CIBSE -Library (Air Conditioned)
- Good Practice (*2)
HEEPI - Library- Typical Practice
(*2)
CBECS - Library (2*)
Univeristy of Hawaii - Library
(*2)
CIBSE -Library (Naturally
Ventilated) - Typical Practice
(*2)
UVic - Mearns-McPhearson
Library (1*)
BSRIA - Library - Typical
Practice (*2)
CIBSE -Library (Naturally
Ventilated) - Good Practice (*2)
HEEPI - Library - Best Practice
(*2)
Electrical
Figure 7-4 Library Building Energy Benchmark Comparison
Page 7-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
8 NEW CONSTRUCTION DESIGN APPROACHES AND BENCHMARKS
8.1
Introduction
Buildings use energy to operate systems which provide space heating and cooling, ventilation air tempering,
domestic hot water heating, lighting and run various types of electrical equipment from computers to
refrigerators.
Reductions in the amount of energy used by new and renovated buildings can be achieved through the use of
optimal design approaches and best practice passive design strategies, whilst still providing occupant
comfort.
8.2
Optimal Design Approaches
Through properly applied passive design principles, we can greatly reduce building energy requirements
before we even consider mechanical systems. Designs that do not consider passive thermal behavior must
rely on extensive and costly mechanical HVAC systems to maintain adequate indoor conditions, which may or
may not even be comfortable. Furthermore, even the most efficient technologies will use more energy than is
necessary with a poorly designed building. To successfully implement the passive design approach, one must
first accomplish the following:
•
•
•
Whilst the special characteristics of each building types will require specific energy use reduction targets, the
following generic energy use reduction hierarchy can be applied across all building types:
1
2
3
Use less energy – reduce energy demand by applying passive design principles
Use energy efficiently – Reduce energy use by incorporating efficient active systems
Use of low and zero carbon sources of energy – Reduce dependence on grid based fossil fuel
derived energy
A significant of typical building energy use is related to maintaining the building interior at comfortable thermal
state and providing ventilation for the building occupants.
Passive design is an approach to building design that uses the building architecture to minimize energy
demand and improve thermal comfort. The building form and thermal performance of building elements
(including architectural, structural, envelope and passive mechanical) are carefully considered and optimized
for interaction with the local microclimate. The ultimate vision of passive design is to fully eliminate
requirements for active mechanical systems (and associated fossil fuel-based energy consumption) and to
maintain occupant comfort at all times. Where mechanical assistance is required to maintain thermal comfort,
energy efficient systems that compliment passive design strategies should be incorporated.
This section presents the design approaches and passive and active strategies which can be used to achieve
this vision, describes their application to buildings in Victoria’s climate and how they can be incorporated into
a new construction building technical guideline.
Understand and define acceptable thermal comfort criteria.
Understand and analyze the local climate, preferably with site-specific data.
Understand and establish clear, realistic and measurable energy use performance targets.
This section presents these and other approaches which should be considered when designing energy
efficient, sustainable buildings.
8.2.1
Thermal Comfort
Thermal comfort refers specifically to our thermal perception of our surroundings. The topic of thermal comfort
is a highly subjective and complex area of study. Through passive design, we can impact four indoor
environmental factors that affect thermal comfort:
•
Air temperature
•
Air humidity
•
Air velocity
•
Surface temperatures
•
Each factor affects thermal comfort differently. The factors most commonly addressed in the conventional
design process, air temperature and air humidity, in fact affect only 6% and 18% of our perception of thermal
comfort, respectively. To take a more effective comfort-focused approach, we must also consider the air
velocity and the temperature of surrounding surfaces, which account for 26% and 50% of thermal comfort
perception, respectively.
The effectiveness of passive strategies at achieving thermal comfort, particularly to avoid overheating during
the summer months, depends on the range of acceptable thermal comfort parameters set for the project.
There are two main approaches to specifying the comfort conditions.
1. Deterministic methods (e.g. Fanger)
2. Adaptive methods (e.g. Brager and de Dear)
The deterministic methods relate given space conditions, such as occupant clothing, temperature to the likely
level of space comfort, whereas the adaptive approach relates acceptable space comfort to the outside
conditions and uses people’s ability to adapt to their surroundings by adjusting their clothing. Both models
typically express the level of thermal discomfort as a percentage of persons dissatisfied (PPD).
Deterministic methods, like the Fangar Model, suit the conventional approach well with typical heavy reliance
on active mechanical systems regardless of the outdoor climatic conditions. This can also lead to
unnecessary energy consumption. Furthermore, this simplification does not account for the temperature of
surrounding surfaces which is the dominant factor affecting thermal comfort.
The Adaptive Model correlates variable outdoor conditions with indoor conditions and defines comfort with a
wider range of thermal parameters, making it more suited to buildings with passive features and natural
Page 8-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
ventilation. In the mild Victoria climate, passive buildings can maintain acceptable thermal comfort within the
parameters of the Adaptive Model for the majority of the year, with the exception of the coldest outdoor
temperatures during winter.
Many adaptive models have been developed to define zones of comfort, combining the effects of all four
environmental variables affecting comfort.
8.2.3
Energy Performance Targets
Establishing building energy performance targets in clear and measurable terms is a fundamental prerequisite
of energy efficient building design. This can be achieved using existing benchmark data and also developing
site specific benchmarks through energy modelling.
An energy benchmark range can be developed to allow gradual implementation and give direction to
designers.
8.2.4
Integrated Design Process
The integrated design process (IDP) ensures all issues affecting sustainable performance are addressed
throughout the building design process, from concept design to occupancy. It is most critical to implement IDP
at the early stage of the project when issues can be addressed with minimal disruption through consistent and
coordinated collaboration between all the disciplines and the team members.
An experienced design team, who have a coherent understanding of the project targets and design intent,
and who place energy performance as a key driver of the design rather than as an add-on will have the best
opportunity to meet the financial targets as well as energy targets.
8.2.5
Optimal Space Programming
Most of the buildings include spaces with different occupancy patterns, uses and indoor temperature control
requirements. The logical and efficient placement and location of these spaces with respect to their optimal
functional arrangement is referred to as Functional Space Programming.
Functional programming is one of the key elements that can also affect the energy performance of every
building in addition to the optimal functional arrangement. Locating spaces in their ideal thermal location in
the building reduces mechanical heating and cooling energy and reduce glare and improve comfort by taking
advantage of the building’s natural responses.
In the Victoria climate, optimal space programming typically means:
•
8-1 ASHRAE Comfort Zone
8.2.2
•
The following example will elaborate effects of proper/improper programming on the building energy use.
Local Climate
Understanding the local climate is the foundation of energy efficient building design. It guides the selection of
appropriate passive design strategies and affects the extent to which mechanical systems are needed to
maintain comfort.
As discussed earlier in this report, Victoria has a temperate climate with mild temperatures and moderate
humidity levels year round. Summers are pleasantly warm and dry and winters are relatively mild with high
levels of precipitation. The following table shows the average minimum and maximum air temperatures for
Victoria during the coldest month (January) and the hottest month (August).
January
Average Minimum
o
0.5 C
Cooling dominated spaces should be located to the north or east or in the centre of the building to
reduce or eliminate solar gain.
Heating dominated spaces should be located on the south and west elevations. However,
overexposure should be avoided through the use of effective external shading
August
Average Maximum
o
6.2 C
Average Minimum
o
13.2 C
Average Maximum
o
21.9 C
Almost every Academic building has a requirement for Data/Communication and Electrical rooms. These
rooms are typically the location for the servers, AV racks, control panels, MCC panels and Step down
transformers. The common characteristic of all these equipment is the heat generation or in other words,
these units require considerable amount of cooling energy year round to be maintained at their normal
operating temperature (normally less than 30°C).
By locating this cooling dominated space on the north elevation of the building, the cooling energy
requirements can be minimized since there will be no adverse solar impact and the heat loss through the
exterior walls will reduce the cooling load by a considerable amount. If the room was located at the south or
west elevation, all the solar gains would’ve worked against the load characteristics of the room resulting in
excessive cooling energy requirements.
Optimal Space Programming is one of the key no-cost initial best practice strategies for building energy use
reduction. By following the simple rules of optimal space programming during the early stages of design,
design teams can significantly reduce a building’s energy consumption.
Page 8-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
8.3
Passive Design Considerations
Passive building elements should be designed to respond to the local climate in ways that reduces the
amount of mechanical energy required to provide thermal comfort indoors. Passive features that are well
integrated will also reduce the peak thermal demands of building as well. The main variables which influence
passive design strategies and typical passive features are described below.
8.3.1
Building Shape and Massing (Form)
The building shape and massing plays a significant role in the overall energy performance and occupant
comfort because the envelope surface area affects the amount of heat that is lost or gained through the
envelope. The ratio between the envelope area and the useable floor space or volume is the
compactness of the building. In climates with extreme hot and cold conditions, a more compact building
will have lower rates of heat loss and gain than a building which is more spread out, in winter and
summer respectively. The result is lower annual energy consumption for both space heating and space
cooling.
However, as with many passive features there is a tradeoff, and in this case the compact building form
has a negative effect on availability of day lighting and natural ventilation. Natural ventilation strategies
depend on adequate cross ventilation through the space, which functions more effectively in a narrower
building profile, which is a often a less compact building form. These impacts can be mitigated through
design by using skylights, for example, or atriums to promote adequate air circulation.
8.3.2
High Performance Facades and Glazing Areas
Effective thermal insulation is the most critical design parameter of building envelope. It reduces the rate
of heat losses and gains to and from the outside. The rate of heat losses and gains through the envelope
is a function of the thermal resistance, R-Value, and the overall heat transfer coefficient, U-Value of the
envelope. Minimum R-Values and maximum U-values are prescribed by the ASHRAE 90.1 and MNECB
energy standard for buildings.
Thermal insulation also impacts the surface temperature on the envelope interior, which directly Impacts
thermal comfort by both radiant and convective heat transfer. In addition to their impact on comfort,
interior envelope surface temperatures must remain high enough during winter to avoid condensation and
maintain the integrity of the assembly and materials over time.
8.3.3
Solar Shading
External solar shading includes the use of overhangs, blinds, louvers, trellises, or anything else that
blocks the sun’s rays from entering the building through glazing and heating the building envelope.
Interior solar shading features, typically internal blinds, are any material that is used to block the sun’s
rays on the interior side of the windows. They are effective at reducing glare in the space but ineffective at
eliminating solar heat gains reaching the space.
The distinction between internal and external shading is important because although both systems block
solar radiation, they have different effects on the building thermal load, aesthetic, day lighting, comfort,
and mechanical system performance.
When used on transparent envelope assemblies (i.e., glazing), shading reduces the amount of direct
solar gain in the space, reduces both the external and internal surface temperatures of affected windows,
floors and walls, and reduces glare in the space, while still allowing adequate daylighting.
Interior shading also blocks the sun from penetrating into the conditioned space; however the heat energy
is still transmitted through the window assembly. Once within the building envelope, this energy heats the
internal surface of the glass and the interior shade. The warm surfaces will heat occupants through
radiant and convective heat transfer and if mechanical cooling is used, this heat energy needs to be
removed by the system.
Effective shading design requires a balance between admitting desirable solar gains in the winter and
blocking off undesirable solar gains in the summer. The optimal shading strategy would be adjustable for
different times of the year.
Fixed external shading features should be designed to admit low-angle winter sun and block high angle
summer sun.
The glazing to wall area ratio is the ratio of transparent glazing to the total wall area of the envelope. The
amount of glazing affects the building in two ways:
•
•
Solar radiation is transmitted directly to the space through glazing where it gets trapped
inside, heating the interior surfaces of the space. This is beneficial and desirable during
winter (heating season) and undesirable during summer (cooling season), when it results
in overheated spaces.
The insulating value of glazing is poor compared to opaque assemblies and the amount
and quality of glazing affects the amount of heat that escapes from or is trapped inside
the building.
As such, the size and location of windows affects the heating and cooling necessary in the spaces. As the
sun travels across the sky during the day, different building exposures are affected by the changing solar
gains differently.
Architecturally, windows must be placed to enhance occupant comfort and aesthetics and provide
daylighting by diffusing light with minimal glare.
Typically the requirements of heating and cooling, aesthetics and daylighting are in conflict; energy model
simulations help us to strike a balance between them.
Figure 8-2 Benefits of solar shading
Page 8-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
8.4
8.3.4
Thermal Mass
All matter has thermal mass, however when used in reference to a building, thermal mass generally
means materials capable of absorbing, holding and gradually releasing heat (thermal energy). Thermally
massive materials absorb heat and slowly release it when there is a temperature difference between the
mass and the surrounding space. When incorporated in a wall, for example, the mass acts as a heat sink,
absorbing the heat and slowing its transfer through the wall.
Heavy, dense building materials with high specific heat capacity like stone, concrete or brick have high
thermal mass. Lightweight porous materials such as wood, insulation, and glass have low thermal mass.
During summer, thermal mass exposed to the interior absorbs heat from the space, including solar gains
and lowers the load on the mechanical cooling system. The natural energy conservation benefits of a
building’s thermal mass can be further extended by appropriate combination with other passive or active
strategies such as nocturnal cooling by natural ventilation or low intensity radiant slab heating/cooling
systems, respectively.
Active Building Systems Considerations
Active building systems are the in-building systems with the primary role of maintaining space conditions
within the design and comfort parameters. The design and application of highly efficient active systems is
linked to the passive measures incorporated and the available sources of energy. Active system selection is
relevant to individual building systems and campus wide energy systems. There are also several key choices
related to identifying the most appropriate active system configuration, for both individual building systems
and campus wide energy applications, as follows:
8.4.1
Heating Only vs. Heating and Cooling
UVic have a preference for heating only within buildings, but also expect internal thermal comfort
conditions to be achieved. For spaces with high internal gains, the narrow range defined in ASHRAE will
typically require the use of active mechanical cooling which in turn uses additional energy.
The intent to restrict mechanical cooling to those spaces where the need has been demonstrated, such
as lecture theatres, should be explicitly defined in all tender documentation so designers of future
buildings have a clear brief from the beginning.
By accepting a wider range thermal comfort temperatures (refer to 8.2.1 above for information) the need
for mechanical cooling may be eliminated from the majority of building occupancy types as per UVic’s
intent, and reduce the cooling load in buildings where cooling is deemed required.
8.4.2
Forced-Air vs. Hydronic
Forced-air systems represent the most conventional HVAC system choice in North America. They provide
a combination of space heating; cooling and ventilation function in a single package and rely on
recirculation of relatively large air volumes to function properly.
Hydronic systems use water to transfer energy from the heating/cooling source to the space
heating/cooling emitter. Hydronic systems are more energy efficient at transferring energy from source to
point of use since water (liquid) has significantly higher density and volumetric heat capacity than air
(gas). Because of this better heat capacity, the volumetric flow of water required to transfer a given
amount of energy is significantly less than air, resulting in smaller pipes which allow easier integration into
complex buildings, and reduce pumping energy providing energy savings when compared with fan energy
used by a forced-air system of equivalent capacity.
Therefore, energy can me moved over long distances using water with greater efficiency, providing
opportunities to deliver energy to buildings form outside the building’s footprint.
Figure 8-3 Effect of Thermal Mass on Building's Indoor Thermal State
8.3.5
Nocturnal Cooling by Natural Ventilation
In Victoria’s mild climate, summers are characterized with sufficiently large “diurnal” temperature
fluctuations that present an opportunity for passive nocturnal cooling by natural ventilation. This passive
cooling strategy works best in combination with high mass buildings, where the mass can be cooled
overnight and then act as a heat sink to absorb heat during the day.
Natural ventilation is encouraged overnight to remove heat accumulated in the building mass during the
day. The cooler night-time air flushes and cools the warm building structure/mass. The natural ventilation
can be mechanically assisted with exhaust fans. In the morning, the occupants come into a building that
is already pre-cooled. This system is best applied to buildings with high daytime use and low night time
use.
Ideally, the cool night-time air will be introduced at low level with the relief/exhaust high in the building to
allow the hot air to rise as cool air replaces it below.
Hydronic systems should be chosen above forced air systems for heating/cooling purposes where
possible.
8.4.3
Space Heating/Cooling “Emitter” Choice
The selection of the heating/cooling emitter is dependent on a number of factors including the proposed
use of the space, the system type and the exergy (Energy quality) of the available energy.
Convection emitters (relying on natural convection, such as baseboard heating element, or forced
convection such as fan coil) rely on the tempering of air to deliver heat to a space. The convection based
heating and cooling systems are affected by natural air stratification or sudden pressure gradients caused
by opening doors, windows, etc. potentially producing an uneven temperature pattern across a room.
Convection systems typically require medium to high grade heat, i.e. higher heating water temperature
which requires the use of more conventional and less efficient heating/cooling sources such as boilers or
chillers. The use of electricity for resistance heating is highly undesirable. Electricity is the highest grade
(form) of energy available, and demand grows faster than sustainable production capacity (i.e. majority of
new power generation plants are fossil fuel based) and an increasingly larger proportion of complex
Page 8-4
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
technologies depends on it. Therefore, the use of electricity for resistance heating is not compatible with a
modern sustainable perspective and should not be considered for new construction or renovation.
ventilation rates. The corresponding increase in ductwork size and air handling unit (AHU) elements will
5
have a cost impact but experience has shown the payback is within 3-5 years .
Radiant emitters, such as radiant floor or ceiling heating/cooling rely on actively tempered (heated or
cooled) surface to deliver the heating or cooling to the space by radiant heat transfer. Radiant emitters
required low grade heat i.e. lower water temperature which can be generated with higher efficiency and/or
by low grade waste or renewable energy sources.
The zoning and control of any ventilation system should be considered during the design process.
Providing zone control (demand ventilation) and variable speed drives on the fans can help to reduce
energy when sections of buildings are unoccupied.
8-4 Effects of Displacement Ventilation
8.4.4
Ventilation System Choice
8.4.5
The conventional ’dilution’ type ventilation associated with forced air HVAC systems typically provides
large volumes of air with the combined function of room temperature (comfort) control and the supply of
fresh air for ventilation. In these systems only a relatively small fraction of the overall air flow is fresh
outdoor. As described above, the use of air to heat a space is less efficient that hydronic. A large amount
of fan energy is required to move the air volume around the building.
Systems should be designed to operate at temperatures as close to the specified internal conditions as
possible to maximize system operating efficiency. This also promotes the use of low grade energy
sources which offer further opportunities to improve overall building energy performance.
8.4.6
An alternative system is a dedicated outdoor air system ‘DOAS’, which supplies only the relatively small
volume of fresh air from outside to meet ventilation requirements, and is installed in parallel with some
other space heating/cooling system. The size of the system is kept to the code minimum, 10l/s per person
or less, so spaces are not over ventilated. A DOAS system does not provide space heating but has the
ability to provide supplementary free cooling when external air temperatures allow, potentially reducing
the need for a dedicated cooling system. A version of DOAS where ventilation air is supplied at low
level, low velocity and temperature and exhausted at high level is termed displacement ventilation.
System Energy Recovery Ability
Systems which can recover otherwise wasted/exhausted energy from within a building or neighbouring
building will reduce a building’s energy demand. The ability of a hydronic system to efficiently transfer
energy over large distances with minimal spatial requirements provides great flexibility in recovering and
re-distributing energy throughout a building and even a campus.
Another example of recovering energy is the provision of heat recovery in a ventilation system, for
example, can significantly reduce the heating demand required to preheat incoming air, with typical
efficiencies of 55%-75%. Energy recovery should therefore be incorporated where high ventilation rates
The inclusion of energy recovery systems at the point of air exhaust such as plate heat exchangers and
run-around coils can further reduce energy use, see section 8.9.6 below.
Reducing a ventilation system’s pressure loss can offer energy savings through reduced fan power and
greater heat exchanger efficiency. This can offer significant savings in laboratories due to the high
System Operating Temperatures
5
Lab21 Design guide : http://ateam.lbl.gov/Design-Guide/DGHtm/reducingahupressuredrop.htm
Page 8-5
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
are required for other purposes. Certain types of heating/cooling systems cannot incorporate energy
recovery mechanisms which may influence their selection.
8.5
8.5.1
8.4.7
System Level Expandability and Integration
A guidelines document can also outline the principles behind the requirements, and include: performance
objectives, technical requirements, and other UVic-specific requirements for all campus buildings,
recommended practices based on the experience of UVic professionals, project documentation requirements,
UVic code-related issues, sample front-end documentation, plus steps to follow to expedite completion of
UVic projects.
Low grade Renewable Energy Sources
The available on-site, low-grade renewable energy sources and/or waste streams of energy
should be assessed and harnessed to minimize the need for fossil fuel and electricity as much
as possible. A need to apply appropriate energy efficient heating and cooling systems which are
well matched with the identified renewable energy sources is required.
8.4.9
Introduction
Producing a design guideline document will allow UVic to define mandatory performance and prescriptive
requirements for the design, construction and renovation of University-owned institutional buildings,
incorporate many of the design principles stated above, and support and direct designers to meet UVic’s
requirements. The document can be applicable to all building types on UVic’s campus including housing,
athletics and institutional buildings, along with landscape and infrastructure.
The ease with which a system can be expanded and adapted will be an important factor for building types
and uses. Most hydronic systems typically provide more flexibility and better opportunity for expansion
than forced air systems.
A system’s ability to accommodate different sources of energy should also be considered. Hydronic
systems offer a high degree of source flexibility, from central plants consisting of boilers and chillers to
heat pumps, and combined heat and power units. Packaged systems, such as refrigerant based DX or
VRF systems, can only accommodate the refrigerant and controls systems they have been designed to
use.
8.4.8
New Construction and Renovation Technical Guidelines
Requirements for LEED certification and energy performance will be a key element of any guideline document
for UVic and could be incorporated into a dedicated “Sustainability Section”. The Province of British
Columbia’s Energy Efficient Building Strategy (2008) requires all new government buildings and facilities, and
major renovations, to achieve and certify to LEED Gold Performance or equivalent certification. UVic may
wish to require a minimum number of points for certain credit and a guideline document will provide the ideal
document in which to describe this requirement.
Controls
Optimized design and integration of control systems can further enhance the energy reduction capabilities
of passive and active systems. For example, CO2 detectors can effectively track the actual building
occupancy levels control the ventilation system to suit. An efficient controls strategy is very important
when energy recovery features are being integrated into buildings to maximize the potential savings.
A number of key design approaches and strategies that can be incorporated into a future technical guideline
style document are described in the following sections. This is not an exhaustive list but provides examples of
how the key design approaches and strategies described earlier can be incorporated into a guideline
document for application to new and renovated building design at UVic.
8.4.10 Measurement and Verification (M&V)
Providing proper Measurement and Verification (M&V) systems for building mechanical, electrical and
plumbing systems will help to reduce operating costs, air and water pollution and resource depletion
through constant feedback of the building systems operation. Heating and ventilation system will also
assist with optimizing energy performance and the re-commissioning and preventative maintenance
efforts.
8.5.2
Reference to Best Practice Strategies
The guideline document should promote the reduction of a building’s energy demand through the following
generic energy hierarchy, which can be applied across all building types.
Work is currently under way to add measurement and verification retrospectively to all existing buildings
linked to the existing heating loop but it is important that metering is integrated into all new and renovated
buildings as the Business as usual scenario. This will allow future benchmarking of individual building’s
energy consumption, help indentify energy pigs quickly, and allow swift identification of building’s
operating outside of their energy consumption tolerance.
1. Use less energy – apply passive design principles
2. Use energy efficiently – incorporate efficient active systems
3. Use of low and zero carbon sources of energy
The best practice strategies and design approaches described above should be referenced in the technical
guideline for consideration by designers. Any specific sustainability guideline should be explicitly referenced in
the Technical Guidelines for designers to refer regarding applicable passive design systems.
8.4.11 Electrical and Lighting Systems
A building’s lighting and plug load electrical energy use will begin to dominate as the heating load and
energy use is decreased. The integration of efficient electrical equipment and controls will therefore
become increasingly influential.
8.5.3
Functional Space Programming
An important strategy that is highly relevant for buildings at UVic is functional space programming, and should
be highlighted in the Technical Guidelines.
The provision of occupancy and daylight sensors will reduce the lighting hours of operation by responding
to how the building is used and external daylight levels. Efficient lighting fixtures will further reduce the
lighting load.
Locating spaces in their ideal thermal location in the building reduces mechanical heating and cooling energy
by taking advantage of the building’s natural responses. Functional space planning can also reduce glare
and improve comfort.
Eliminating ‘parasitic’ plug loads will reduce the electrical load of a building and can be achieved through
the use of “kill” switches and changing human behaviour. The use of efficient equipment such as laptops
will further contribute to reducing the plug load in a building.
In Victoria’s climate, functional space programming typically means:
Page 8-6
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
i.
Cooling dominated spaces are located to the north or in the centre of the building to reduce or
eliminate solar gain.
Heating dominated spaces are located are located on the south and west elevations. However,
overexposure should be avoided through the use of external shading
ii.
Space Type
Offices
Functional space programming should be considered by designers during the initial stage of design of all
building types at UVic.
8.5.4
Designing buildings to achieve adaptive thermal comfort criteria is a key element to realizing significant
energy savings and should be clearly defined for designers in the Technical Guidelines.
Passive
Cooling
UVic buildings are generally not air conditioned; however, thermal comfort still needs to be achieved and
maintained.
The four main environmental thermal comfort factors that can be affected by implementing passive design
strategies in a building are:
o
o
o
o
Laboratories
o
o
20 C - 23 C
20 C - 23 C
23 C ± 2 C
Internal
temperatures to not
exceed:
o
25 C for 5%
of occupied
hours
o
28 C for 1%
of occupied
hours
Internal
temperatures to not
exceed:
o
25 C for 5%
of occupied
hours
o
28 C for 1%
of occupied
hours
Free cooling
Free cooling
N/A
N/A
5
5
Mechanical
Cooling
Air temperature
Air humidity
Air velocity
Surface temperatures
o
Large
+
Classrooms
20 C - 23 C
Heating
Adaptive Thermal Comfort
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
o
Classrooms
+ Large classrooms and lecture theatres typically accommodate >70 people.
Designers shall take all factors into consideration during the design process.
Table 8-1 : Recommended internal temperature conditions to achieve thermal comfort
Adaptive thermal comfort principles, set out in ASHRAE 55-2004, shall be applied to achieve thermal comfort,
and particularly to manage the risk of a building’s occupants overheating. The table below defines the internal
temperature criteria to be used in the design process.
Where conditions require air-conditioning (apart from those defined above), the design team shout be
requested to submit for variance from this guideline as part of the initial submission of project design
philosophy.
Victoria’s temperate climate, with mild temperatures and moderate humidity levels year round, allows the
humidity in a space to be uncontrolled, unless specific humidity conditions are required for the proposed
space use, such as laboratories.
Certain spaces may require mechanical cooling such as large classrooms, lecture theatres and IT suites
where design indicates that internal heat gain will result in unacceptable conditions, i.e. the passive cooling
internal temperature defined in the table below cannot be achieved. The mechanical cooling system shall be
designed to meet the criteria set out in the table below.
o
8.5.5
Building Envelope
Significant reductions in thermal energy use can be achieved by improving the performance of the building
envelope. To realize these potential energy savings, a minimum prescriptive performance should be defined
by UVic.
o
Laboratory spaces shall be maintained at room temperature (23 C - 25 C) and must generally satisfy the
criteria in table below unless the functionality of the space dictates otherwise. During the shoulder seasons
cooling can generally be achieved through the high ventilation rates required by Code.
Consideration should be given to asking designers to incorporate building envelopes that perform better than
the ‘Code Minimum Envelope Performance’ at the time of design. To support UVic’s desire to achieve energy
intensity equivalent to international Best Practice Benchmarks, the initial target for building envelope
performance should be set at a minimum of he building’s envelope performance shall be 25% better than the
minimum performance defined in the current Building Code. The code reference to be used as the baseline
should be continuously updated with the most onerous version. For example, the reference to Building Code
should be replaced with MNECB 2011 once it is published.
8.5.6
Low Flow Fume Hoods and occupancy controlled ventilation.
Laboratory spaces at UVic have been identified as high energy consumers due to the high ventilation load
serving the fume hoods and the minimum ventilation rate required in labs.
Specification of low flow fume hoods can significantly reduce the energy use of laboratory spaces and should
be considered on all future laboratory building projects at UVic.
Page 8-7
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Low flow fume hoods are designed to use a lower face velocity, typically 0.3 m/s (60 fpm), and still meet all
safety legislation. UVic policy should be to use of modern fume hoods and initiate dialogue with WorkSafe BC
to understand how the specification of low flow fume hoods can meet current safety legislation.
The second element relates to the control the minimum ventilation rate in labs based on occupancy. When
labs are unoccupied the background, the ventilation rate should be reduced by 50%, provided the current
safety legislation can be met.
8.5.7
Indoor Light levels
Reducing electrical energy consumption by not over-illuminating spaces beyond what is required for the task
is a key strategy for new and renovated buildings. Currently, UVic do not specify specific lighting levels for
their buildings but could be explicit to designers through a guideline document.
As a general rule, the following task lighting levels shall be used:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Offices 300-500 lux maintained.
Classrooms and Seminar Rooms 300-500 lux maintained.
Corridors 100 lux maintained.
Washrooms 150 lux maintained.
A second method to reducing the electrical energy consumption relating to lighting is to promote the use of
daylighting and individual task lighting which is locally controlled by the user, allowing the remaining space to
be designed to achieve a lower ‘background’ level of lighting. E.G. provide background lighting at 200 lux and
individual task lighting for each user to supplement the background light level.
8.5.8
Reducing Plug Load
It is relatively easy and cost effective to achieve significant reductions in heating energy in climates such as
Victoria’s using current construction methods and materials. In buildings where the heating load has been
reduced, the plug load typically becomes the dominant factor. Potential strategies could be highlighted in a
guideline document for consideration and implementation by designers such as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Users should be encouraged to switch off PCs overnight
Provide ‘Kill switches’ for non essential peripherals
Install local metering to monitor electrical use within departments – allows incentives to be introduced
Hot desking, remote working and 24-hour use restricted to small areas
IT strategy to allow servers to ramp down under part load
Consider the use of laptops throughout offices and classrooms
Off-site internet based cloud computing systems
Renewable systems that generate on-site electricity, such as photovoltaics, should be considered to
offset the electrical equipment and plug loads.
Page 8-8
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
8.6
Summary
Future growth at UVic’s Gordon Head Campus will make achieving carbon reduction targets much harder;
therefore, the goal should be for all new buildings to be as energy efficient as possible.
Defining UVic’s mandatory performance and prescriptive requirements for the design, construction and
renovation of University-owned institutional buildings in a clear and concise document will help designers
place building energy reduction as a key project requirement, and help UVic achieve their future carbon
reduction goals.
Analysis of the development of a “technical guidelines” document is presented in Table 8-2.
Criteria
Assessment
Commercial Availability
Carbon Reduction Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early Implementation Potential
Funding Availability
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
Figure 8-5 Technical Guidelines Document Assessment
8.7
Recommendations
•
Develop a clear and concise document comprising or prescriptive requirements and mandatory
performance.
•
Develop energy use intensity benchmarks for key building types at UVic to act as energy targets for
designers of all new and refurbishment projects at UVic.
Page 8-9
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
9 ENERGY REDUCTION OF EXISTING BUILDING STOCK AND CAMPUS
HEATING SYSTEM
9.1
The University of Victoria’s obligation and financial commitment is to complete energy use reduction
measures identified that have a simple payback of two years or less. A time frame of over a year will be
provided to implement the strategies outlined. A maximum cost of $0.25/ ft2 of the building total gross area
has been set by BC Hydro for the available financial incentive cost limit.
Introduction
An important second component of the program is the utility monitoring for long term sustainability and this
monitoring of our electrical and heating systems energy consumption will be included and is a key component
of the initiative. BC Hydro will fund the inclusion of a monitoring interface to the existing building electrical and
heating systems. The metering data will be key going forward to support the detailed design and integration
of new energy efficient systems and energy sources and it is recommended to complete this element as soon
as is reasonably practicable.
Even with UVic’s plans for future development, the vast majority of the floor space existing in 2020 has
already been built. Therefore, it is critical for the energy consumption of UVic’s existing buildings to be
reduced, and the efficiency of the existing district heating system be improved.
As per the methodology defined in Section 5, this step should be completed prior to considering potential
energy sources, since a smaller building load requires a smaller plant, which in turn reduces capital cost and
improved efficiency.
9.2
Phase 1 of the program has recently been completed, and the anticipated energy savings and associated
capital costs calculated by SES Consulting are set out in Table 9-1, below. Potential thermal energy use
savings of up to 30% have been calculated per building surveyed, and with a very short payback, typically
less than three years.
Continual Optimization
UVic are currently conducting a Continuing Optimization Program, a BC Hydro initiative, with a primary focus
to implement low cost operational improvements to buildings HVAC and lighting control systems. The
program allows for a re-commissioning of buildings coupled with a detailed energy audit, sub meter
monitoring/archiving and software data base analysis.
The total reduction of 9,357GJ equates to approximately 5% of the main boiler plant’s yearly gas
consumption. UVic will be implementing the recommendations over the coming year. Phases 2 and 3 are
expected to produce similar results and such significant energy savings across 18 buildings will influence the
feasibility of potential campus wide energy sources.
BC Hydro provides funding to conduct an audit to determine the most cost-effective measures to bring our
building's operation up to optimal energy efficiency levels. A list of recommended energy efficiency
measures, the implementation costs, the resulting energy savings and the paybacks. Typical annual energy
use reductions are in the order of 10% combined from electrical and natural gas.
Implementation
Cap
Capital Cost
SCI
$35,000
$200,023
ECS
$24,000
DSB
Building
Payback
Estimated
Power
Smart
Revised
Capital
Cost
Revised
Payback
Project Savings
$
GJ
kW
kWh
GHG
1.6
$124,026
2,389
330
1,238,500
254
$86,900
2.0
$44,200
1,280
200
341,135
93
$19,600
$85,127
1.6
$54,553
1,729
238
354,373
125
ELW
$32,000
$131,500
1.3
$101,500
2,860
847,100
212
SSM
$25,000
$35,334
2.4
$14,445
337
156
128,139
26
HSD
$21,300
$69,788
2.5
$28,267
762
201
229,520
56
Total
$156,900
$608,672
1.7
$366,991
9,357
1125
3,138,767
766
$175,000
$433,672
1.2yrs
6
Table 9-1 Phase 1 - Continuous Optimization Strategy
6
Recreated from SES Phase 1 Continuous Optimization Strategy, 2011
Page 9-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
9.3
Existing High Temperature Heating Loop
The high operating temperature of the existing campus heating loop will hinder the integration of high efficiency
technologies and low or zero carbon energy sources. The relatively high number of buildings connected to the loop
means lowering the heating supply water temperature will be prohibitively expensive due to the changes required to
each building’s heating system.
Since the loop will therefore be required to operate at high temperature during the winter months to meet the peak
heating demand, the efficiency of the existing boiler plant equipment and the system as a whole should be improved
achieve energy savings.
9.3.1
Controls
There is the potential for the meters being installed as part of the Continual Optimization Program could be used as
the flow and temperature inputs, eliminating the need for two sets of energy meters per building, and reducing the
capital cost.
The capital cost has been estimated at $150,000 to $200,000, based on a cost of $5,000 - $6,000 per building for the
30 buildings currently connected to the loop. This cost covers the cost of connect new energy meters to an existing
Building Management System and refining the control logic.
The provision of local domestic hot water heaters in buildings with high temperature needs (e.g. Lab buildings) and
high demand (residential) will allow the loop temperature to be lowered on a more regular basis. The following
buildings have been identified as potentially requiring local hot water heaters. The provision of end use energy
metering through the Continual Optimization Program discussed in section 9.2 will help to highlight additional
buildings with high domestic hot water demands.
Whilst the majority of the boiler plant, pumps and valves are connected to some form of direct digital control, there is
no feedback loop between a building’s heating demand and the heat out put form the main boiler plant at ELW. This
was identified in Hirschfield Williams Timmons’s Campus Central heating Report, March 2009 and a scope of work
outlined to improve efficiency.
The main thrust of the work is for the ELW main heating pumps to be controlled by the building control valves,
conserving pumping energy by only providing the minimum flow rate that satisfies all heating demands.
To achieve the required degree of control and potential energy use reduction, a single DDC controls program for the
DES would be required, linked to the following control points.
•
input of the DES temperature in and out of each building heat exchanger
•
input of the DES flow to each building heat exchanger
•
input of the supply water temperature to each building from its heat exchanger
•
input of each building’s supply water set point temperature
•
output to modulate the DES control valve to each building heat exchanger
•
operating status, temperatures, flow pressure and for each of the ten DES boilers
•
operating status for the DES pumps at each boiler plant
•
output to control (ON/OFF and speed control) for the DES pumps at each boiler plant
•
output to control operating set point temperature for each boiler
•
output to control operating set point temperature for supply water from each boiler plant
•
controls program to optimize the operation of the DES
Building
DHW requirement
Landsdowne Residential
High DHW Load
Craigdarroch
High DHW Load
Commons
High DHW Load
University Centre
High DHW Load
McKinnon Building
High DHW Load
Petch Building
High DHW temperature required
Table 9-2: Known buildings with specific hot water demand
Completing the feedback loop between the thermal energy demands of each building the main boiler plant will allow a
temperature compensation sequence to be introduced, allowing the loop temperature to be lowered during the
shoulder seasons.
9.3.2
Central Plant Pumping
Presently the ELW boiler plant handles almost all of the annual campus heating demand. The ELW DES pumps have
VFD drives. For various reasons (which have been addressed and resolved) the pumps were not operated as variable
speed. This consumed a lot of electrical power. Modifying the control to take advantage of the VFD’s should be
considered. However, this must be balanced with the advantages of any strategy that reduces the operating DES
supply water temperature. This would need to be part of a new central heating controls program
As the other boiler plants provide little annual heating energy, provision of variable speed control to their pumps would
save very little electricity.
9.3.3
Boiler Seasonal Shut-Down
By not having to operate the boilers for low demand periods (summer) through offsetting the campus’ heating
demand using alternative low/zero carbon energy sources is an attractive proposition. Significantly lowering the DES
temperatures when the boilers are operating at low demand will likely cause flue gas condensation, which will
significantly shorten the service life span of the boilers and potentially cause piping expansion/contraction issues.
Provision of alternate heating for DHW should be considered. However, some science buildings (Cunningham, Petch,
Elliott, Bob Wright) have large outdoor air demands that could require heat at least some times in summer. So,
removal of the DHW demand alone may not be sufficient to allow shutting down the boilers.
If heat pumps are provided at the central plants or at the buildings then with DHW removed they could provide
sufficient “summer” heating capacity at lower supply water temperature.
Page 9-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Some buildings need DHW for cooking or showers so their DHW demand is high. These Buildings are the University
Centre, Commons, SUB, McKinnon Gym and Lansdowne and Craigdarroch Residences. Petch uses 80°C DHW for
central lab containers cleaning. For these buildings local condensing boilers and/or solar panels and/or air-to-water
heat pumps and/or electric resistance heat could be considered for DHW heating. To keep the capacity of the
alternate heaters smaller, larger storage capacity for the DHW should be considered.
For the other buildings the demand for DHW is probably very small – janitorial, hand-washing, science building washup. Electric resistance DHW heating could be used where it is not already in use for this.
These options are considered individually in further detail in the following sections.
Page 9-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
9.4
Summary
The existing campus heating loop at UVic will provide will remain in operation and operate at high
temperature during the winter month. The performance and efficiency of the heating loop can be improved by
providing a control feedback loop between all buildings connected to the loop and the central boiler plant. This
will help to reduce gas consumption, and reduce the size of any future boiler plant.
Analysis of the heating loop improvements is presented in Table 8-2.
Criteria
Assessment
Commercial Availability
Carbon Reduction Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early Implementation Potential
Funding Availability
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
Table 9-3 Existing Heating Loop Modifications Assessment
9.5
Recommendations
•
Install Energy Metering to all buildings connected to the district heating loop. The energy flow meter
specification should allow connection to a central building management system.
•
Complete all three phases of the Continual Optimization Program
•
Provide a feedback loop between all buildings served by the district heating loop eating demand main
boiler plant at ELW. Control the heat output from the main boiler plant based on the buildings’ heating
demand.
•
Provide local heating for domestic hot water for use during summer to allow seasonal shutdown of
central boiler plant.
Page 9-4
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10 ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS
8000000
10.1 Introduction
7000000
Thermal Energy Use (GJ)
The following section describes potential energy saving strategies, their applicability to UVic’s Gordon Head Campus,
budget cost information, maintenance considerations simple payback calculations. The most feasible solutions will be
explored in greater detail in Section 11.
10.2 Revised Baseline
In Sections 9 and 10, it is recommended for all three phases of the continual optimization Program to be completed
and the existing heating loop control to be upgraded prior to changing the fuel source at UVic’s campus.
The energy savings achieved by making these improvements will help reduce the size of heating plant, reduce the
capital cost of replacement, and improve the feasibility. As discussed in Section 9,
Phase 1 of the Continual
Optimization Program is expected to reduce the central loop’s heating demand by approximately 5%, with Phases 2
and 3 expected to produce similar savings.
(kWh)
(GJ)
(kWh)
Apr-09
21,806
6,057,298
19,625
5,451,569
May-09
13,985
3,884,892
12,587
3,496,403
Jun-09
7,050
1,958,405
6,345
1,762,564
Jul-09
4,764
1,323,372
4,288
1,191,035
Aug-09
6,877
1,910,376
6,190
1,719,339
Sep-09
15,381
4,272,784
13,844
3,845,506
Oct-09
16,299
4,527,703
14,670
4,074,933
Nov-09
22,252
6,181,272
20,027
5,563,145
Dec-09
30,156
8,376,817
27,141
7,539,135
Jan-10
22,187
6,163,355
19,969
5,547,019
Feb-10
19,955
5,543,211
17,960
4,988,890
Mar-10
22,207
6,168,660
19,986
5,551,794
Total
202,923
56,368,145
182,631
50,731,331
4000000
3000000
Revised Energy
Use
2000000
0
Month, Year
Adjusted Natural Gas
Consumption
(GJ)
5000000
1000000
To account for the energy reduction achieved by implementing the above recommendations in the feasibility analysis
of each fuel source, a conservative 10% reduction has been applied to the “baseline” thermal energy consumption of
2009/2010, See Table 10-1 and Figure 10-1
Baseline Natural Gas
Consumption
6000000
Figure 10-1 Revised Thermal Energy Baseline Use Profile
10.3 Assumptions
A set of general assumptions for energy cost and fuel source carbon intensity have been used in the assessment of
each technology, unless otherwise stated. The general assumptions are as follows:
Natural Gas Cost
Electricity Cost
Carbon Credit Cost
= $0.05/kWh
= $0.056/kWh
= $25/tonne
Fortis BC Natural Gas Carbon Emission Density = 0.183 tonnes/MWh
BC Hydro Electricity Carbon Emission Density = 0.028 tonnes/MWh
Table 10-1Revised Natural Gas Consumption Baseline
Page 10-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.4 Central Natural Gas-Fired Condensing Boilers
Summary
Description
The integration of gas-fired boilers offers the potential to save energy and reduce carbon emissions with a relatively
low payback.
Condensing boilers are designed to extract maximum possible
amount of heat contained in the natural gas by cooling the flue
gases to ambient temperature and capturing the latent heat in
condensed flue gases.
•
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Efficiencies of condensing boilers reaching 95-97% are typically
10-12% higher than conventional, non-condensing boilers, when
operated with low heating hot water return temps.
•
The efficiency varies depending upon the temperature of the water returning to the boiler; the lower the
temperature, the higher the heat recovery potential. Condensing boilers are no less efficient than conventional
o
o
boilers, when operating with heating water return temperatures above 73 C (165 F)
•
Benefits
-
Allows inefficient, non-condensing, boiler plant to
be switched off during summer
No changes to existing primary heating pump
system required
Would provide backup and peak winter coverage
allowing older boiler plants to be decommissioned
Limitations
capital cost
Additional gas service, metering and
controls
Heat exchanger arrangements vary
between buildings
Annual Energy Production =
26,400 MWh/year
Annual energy savings =
3,600 MWh/year
Annual Carbon Savings =
660 tonnes Co2/year (0.183 tonnes/MWh)
Annual Energy Cost savings =
$165,600/year
Capital Cost =
$1.2M-1.6M
Business as Usual Capital Cost
$0.6M-0.9M
Carbon Credit “refund”
$16,500/year
Simple Payback
3 - 4 years (6-9 years direct payback)
Recommendation
FURTHER STUDY
Feasibility at UVic
•
The majority of buildings connected to the existing campus heating loop rely on the loop to generate domestic
hot water via separate heat exchangers.
•
The existing high temperature loop currently operates at 105 – 115 C throughout the year to meet the
campus’ domestic hot water load, which is highly inefficient.
•
Approximately 4150kW of condensing boiler plant capacity is required to meet summertime heating and
domestic hot water load.
•
This new boiler plant consisting of a bank of smaller capacity condensing boilers in parallel can replace an
existing satellite boiler installation such as Clearihue, as and when require; eliminates the need for new
building.
•
The new boiler plant can become the lead boiler plant capacity, supported by existing boiler at ELW during
peak winter months.
•
Each building’s heat exchanger controls will require automation, linked to common HWS scheduling
•
Local additional domestic hot water heaters to do the final temperature boost will be required in buildings
where high temperature DHWS is required. For example, the Petch building has two domestic hot water
connections to the loop; one for high temperature and the other for low temperature domestic hot water.
•
The business as usual case of replacing the current Clearihue boilers with like for like shall be included in the
payback analysis.
o
Page 10-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.6 Local Domestic Hot Water Heaters
Summary
Description
The payback is excessive for the provision of local domestic hot water heaters to all buildings connected to the
heating loop. However, they will remain as a cost effective solution in certain situations, e.g. locally in laboratory
buildings to generate high temperature domestic hot water if the district heating loop temperature is lowered or in
combination with solar thermal system to act as storage and backup.
•
An alternative to centralized condensing boilers is the provision
of local gas-fired condensing domestic water heaters in each
building.
•
Local generation of hot water will allow the high temperature
loop to be turned off.
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Operate in a similar manner as condensing boilers with
efficiencies typically 10-12% higher than conventional, noncondensing boilers.
Annual Energy Production =
2500 MWh/year
•
Annual energy savings =
340 MWh/year
Annual Carbon Savings =
60 tonnes Co2/year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
$16,000/year
Capital Cost =
$500,000 - $600,000 ($16K - $20k each)
Carbon Credit “refund”
$1,500/year
Payback =
28 - 35 years
Benefits
-
Limitations
Allows inefficient, non-condensing, boiler plant
to be switched off during summer
No changes to existing primary heating pump
system required
Would provide backup and peak winter
coverage allowing older boiler plants to be
decommissioned
-
capital cost
Additional gas service, metering and
controls
HEX arrangement varies between
buildings
Recommendation
FEASIBLE IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS
Feasibility at UVic
•
Approximately, thirty 140kW gas-fired condensing domestic water heaters provide; one in each building
currently connected to the high temperature loop to meet summertime domestic hot water load only.
•
Buildings with large ventilation volumes may still require heating during the shoulder seasons. Window of
opportunity to turn loop off limited to July and August.
•
Space will need to be found in each building’s mechanical room.
•
Each building’s heat exchanger controls will require automation, to allow complete isolation from the loop.
•
The capital cost of the domestic hot water heaters is in addition to the business as usual case.
Page 10-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.8 CRD Sewerage Heat Recovery
Description
•
•
•
A sewer heat recovery system extracts low-grade heat contained in the grey-water and waste water flowing
down the sewer system. Heat exchange can be done at the individual building or on a district level.
On a district level and exchange heat with the water flowing down the underground sewer mains at the
development. A system similar to the horizontal ground loop heat exchanger could be installed around the
sewer mains and heat pumps would be used to transfer heat between the building systems and the heat
exchangers.
The effluent temperature does not fluctuate significantly on an annual basis. The temperature of the
distribution fluid contained in the DES piping would be always lower than the effluent and could be used to
draw heat from the effluent stream via a simple heat exchanger.
Benefits
-
Large heat harnessing capacity and reliable source
of energy
Provides a cost-effective source of low-grade
thermal energy for seasonal thermal energy storage
Limitations
-
Capital cost
Distances from heat source to end use can be
long
Requires buildings to be designed with low
temperature heating systems to maximize
efficiencies.
Feasibility at UVic
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Capital Regional District (CRD) is planning the construction of a wastewater treatment facility in the
Saanich East-North Oak Bay (SENOB) area, near Arbutus road.
The CRD retained KWL and Compass to assess sewer heat recovery opportunities. Four opportunities in the
Region were screened – UVic and surrounding area determined as leading opportunity. The heat recovery
concept described in this section has been developed by CRD and their consultants, including the indicative
cost estimate.
The CRD’s analysis is based on real levelized energy costs per end-use MW.h. Levelization is analogous to
comparing the net present value of different energy system configurations and has been used as a metric to
determine both business-as-usual costs as well as district energy system costs and make fair comparison
based on end-use MW.h of thermal energy demand. The assumptions used to create the levelized cost are
set out in Appendix XX
The feasibility of the sewage heat recovery systems also assumes connection to existing UVic Student
residences (see figure 10-2) and future growth in the surrounding area. Two scenarios have been assessed;
a base scenario and an expanded scenario which assumes significant future growth in the area.
Both base and expanded scenarios will only offset a small portion of UVic’s current gas use; 11% and 16%
respectively.
The indicative cost estimates for each scenario are as follows:
Base scenario = $8.9 Million
Expanded scenario = $11.6 Million
The proposed connection of existing buildings on the UVic campus to the sewage heat recovery system will
require the buildings to be isolated from the existing central heating plant, although provisions should be
made to allow for switch-back on an as-needed basis. Plate-and-frame heat exchangers should be added in
parallel with the existing shell/tube heat exchangers in the energy transfer stations to facilitate the lower
primary supply temperature. A provisional budget of $100,000 per building for this work was included in the
indicative cost estimate.
The provision of a sewage heat recovery DES has a cost premium vs. BAU assuming no grants,
Figure 10-2 Proposed Student residence to be connected to sewage heat recovery system. From
KWL/Compass/CRD presentation
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY – Provided by CRD and KWL/Compass
Scenario
Levelized Cost per MW.h
Comparison to BAU
Business as Usual
$97
Nil
DES Base Case Without Grants
$118
+22%
DES Base Case With 100% Grant
$54
-44%
$75
-23%
$97
Nil
DES Base Case With:
67% Grant from Provincial & Federal Gov’ts
33% CRD Debt
DES Base Case with Grants to match BAU
Recommendation
Significant additional cost without
grants, only offsets a small portion
Page 10-4
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.9 Heat Recovery from Enterprise Data Centre
Summary
Description
• Data Centers typically have high cooling loads due to the high electrical consumption and density of the
installed servers. They are therefore a potential source of low-grade waste heat.
• Historically, heat from the servers is rejected to atmosphere using air cooled chillers, making it difficult to
capture the waste heat.
• The inclusion of water cooled chillers allows the waste heat to be recovered and serve nearby buildings.
• Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) is the ratio of total amount of power used by a computer data center facility
to the power delivered to computing equipment. An efficient data centre has PUE of 1.2-1.5. EDC2 currently
has a PUE of 2.
Benefits
Recovers heat that would otherwise be rejected to
the atmosphere.
A good, continuous source of heat for an ambient
district heating loop.
Limitations
-
Heat is of a low grade quality
Requires separate low-temperature or
ambient district heating loop
Feasibility at UVic
• The Enterprise Data Centre (EDC2) provides additional server and data processing capacity to support
research and administrative functions for the University of Victoria.
• The new facility can accommodate up to 1260 kW of additional server capacity, or 3000 standard servers.
• It is anticipated that the server load will increase over time. UVic are currently reviewing ways to improve the
efficiency of EDC2. The following assumptions have been made:
Server load = 700kW (future prediction)
PUE = 1.5
Significant energy and carbon savings can be achieved by capturing the low grade waste heat from UVic’s data
centre, EDC2. However, the thermal energy recovered will be low grade and cannot be used to serve existing
buildings connected to the district heating loop.
If new buildings were designed to use low grade thermal energy, e.g. by integrating hydronic radiant slabs instead of
electric baseboard, the energy can be captured and used, helping to offset the carbon emissions incurred from growth
on the campus.
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Annual Energy Production (waste heat) =
6500 MWh/year (low grade heat)
Annual Carbon Savings =
1200 tonnes Co2/year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
300,000 $/year
Capital Cost =
$4M-$5M
(Assumes the majority of the ambient district heating cost
will be included in this option)
Carbon Credit “refund”
$ 27,500
Payback =
12-15years
Recommendation
•
Approximately 300kW of low grade waste heat available, continuously.
•
Heat is used for source side of heat pump, at coefficient of performance (COP) of 2.5, therefore 750kW of
heat produced, every hour, continuously.
•
Based on thermal energy benchmark for student accommodation at 253 kWh/m .yr, the yearly heat demand
2
of approximately 26,000m of student residences can be met using waste heat from EDC2.
•
To maximize the recovery of heat from EDC2 the existing air cooled chillers will need to be replaced with
water cooled versions. This has a significant impact to the capital cost of this option
•
IF the PUE improves the available heat will reduce.
TO OFFSET CARBON EMISSIONS
FROM NEW BUILDINGS
2
Page 10-5
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
UVIC AVERAGE MONTHLY WASTE/RECYCLING COMPOSTITION AND COST
10.10 Energy from Solid Organic Waste
•
•
•
•
Average Monthly
Tonnage*
Properly managed decomposing organic waste with
high energy content (i.e. proteins, fats, sugars)
produces useable gas called biogas.
Comprised of roughly 50% methane CH4, biogas gas
can be burned to create thermal energy or power a
turbine generator with waste heat recovered for space
heating.
Biogas is considered a renewable energy source as
conventional practice is to flame the gas, reducing
methane to less potent green house gases but
wasting useable heat energy.
Solid municipal waste of organic origins can also be
incinerated to generate high grade heat.
Benefits
reduce methane emissions, high impact
greenhouse gas, to less harmful greenhouse
gas emissions
harness unused energy source
less waste to landfill
Limitations
requires high volume of solid organic
waste/year
space requirements
turbine size, noise and vibration
low efficiency of fossil fuel to
electrical energy conversion
Tipping Fee
(per tonne)
Waste (Landfill) - Compactor
45
$
Waste (Landfill) - Open Top
(large items)
1.75
$
Waste (Landfill) - Front Load
Bins
8
Glass/Plastic/Tin
3
$
181.00
Cardboard
9
$
131.00 -$
16.5
$
65.00 -$
Paper
Application Feasibility at UVic
Average
Hauling Rate
(per tonne)*
34.00 $
149.00
107.00 Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load
$
Hauling and tipping fee rolled into one rate (price
600.00 per bin pick up)
$
175.00 Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load
$
Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load 113.00 there are also rebates for cardboard (no tipping fee)
Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load 53.00 there are also rebates for paper (no tipping fee)
Food Waste
31
Metal
5.2
$
94.00 -$
129.74 Hauling and tipping fee rolled into one rate
Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load 100.00 there are also rebates for metal (no tipping fee)
Wood
5
$
99.00 $
80.00 Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load
Mattresses
2
$
290.75
$
189.00 Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load
0.9
$
142.00
$
9.50 Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load
Drywall
2
$
140.00
$
9
$
UVic currently generates approximately 480 Tonnes of organic and food waste per year.
•
Solid municipal needs to undergo pre-treatment or organic elements separated before it can be used to
create biogas.
•
Food waste typically produces 50-85m of biogas per tonne. Biogas typically produces 0.02GJ/m (6kWh/m )
•
UVic’s organic waste stream will be able to produce 816 GJ/year, equivalent to <0.4% of the yearly thermal
energy demand.
Yard & Garden Waste
•
The calorific value of solid municipal waste is approximately 2800kWh (10 GJ) per tonne. UVic’s solid
municipal waste stream at 660 tonnes per year will provide 1,800,000 kWh (6600 GJ) of thermal energy,
equivalent to 3% of UVic’s thermal energy demand.
*All Average Monthly Numbers based on the last 9 months of data
•
The CRD produces 160,000 tonnes of municipal waste every year, 30% of which is organic waste. Some of
this waste could be diverted to UVic’s campus; however the CRD’s landfill site at Hartland already converts
the landfill gas generated from the region’s waste into electricity.
3
Hauling rate includes compactor and bin rental 107.00 $142.50 per load
$
•
3
Notes
Concrete
-
Hauling rate includes bin rental - $213.75 per load
3
22.00 $
28.75 Hauling rate includes bin rental - $150.00 per load
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Annual Energy Production (waste heat) =
1800 MWh/year (low grade heat)
Annual Carbon Savings =
330 tonnes CO2/year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
90,000 $/year
Recommendation
Not Commercially Available
SHOWCASE
Capital Cost =
Estimated at $0.5M-$1M for system to deal
with UVic’s solid waste stream
Carbon Credit “refund”
$ 8,000
Payback =
>25 years
Page 10-6
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.11 Ambient District Energy Systems (DES)
Although ambient DES loops are not a low
or zero carbon energy source in their own
right, it provides an infrastructure that can
be connected to a number of low-grade
decentralized energy sources anywhere on
the loop.
An alternative to UVic’s conventional high
temperature DES is the use of an “ambient
temperature” system featuring a single
large volume, non insulated pipe loop
maintained at a moderate temperature (i.e.
o
5-20 C).
This system is much simpler, more flexible,
and more robust than the conventional high
temperature DES. However, it requires the
use of heat pump technology typically at
each building.
A large development application could
include a flexible and expandable distribution loop tied to multiple low grade energy sources and interconnected
via heat exchangers.
•
•
•
•
TYPICAL LOW-GRADE
ENERGY SOURCE TIED TO
DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM
(ANYWHERE)
SINGLE PIPE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
- MODERATE TEMPERATURE
INDIVIDUAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS
CENTRAL PLUMBING STATION
Benefits
-simpler, more flexible, more reliable and more robust
than conventional dual-temperature level DES
- Provides flexibility for DES growth in both its physical
size and H&C capacity; ideal for developments with
anticipated future growth
Limitations
- High capital cost to install DES loop;
Simplified Schematic of Single Temperature Level DES
- Relocation and disruption of underground systems
likely to be required.
Recommendation
Application Feasibility for UVic
• For UVic a modular, single-temperature, low-temperature DES with distributed heat pumps will enable phased
development, efficient operation, and the flexibility to use multiple low-grade thermal energy sources.
•
Compliments capture of waste heat from EDC2 and potential future sewage heat recovery.
•
Can be developed to serve areas of new construction at UVic’s campus.
CAN POTENTIALLY SERVE AREA OF
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Maintenance
Typical maintenance – no more onerous than existing high temperature loop.
Page 10-7
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.12 Geoexchange
•
•
•
•
Solar energy is absorbed by the earth and
below a certain depth (2m) the earth is a
constant, site specific, temperature year
round.
Earth source energy systems make use of
this constant temperature as a source or
sink for low grade thermal energy.
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
a.) Closed-Loop Vertical EHX
b.) Closed-Loop Horizontal EHX
Annual Energy Production (Thermal) =
16,000 MWh/year (low grade heat)
Annual Energy Consumption (Electrical) =
4000 MWh/year
Annual Carbon Savings
2800 tonnes CO2/year
The many earth source heat exchange
configurations range from open loop ground
water wells to closed loop bore holes.
Annual Energy Cost savings =
90,000 $/year
All systems use heat pumps and a
circulating fluid (water, or a water-glycol
mixture as a heat transfer medium). The
d.) Surface Water EHX
configuration and size of an earth energy c.) Open-Loop Groundwater EHX
system depends on the underlying geology of the site and annual energy requirements of the building(s) it will
serve.
Capital Cost =
Geoexchange loop costs are dependent on
ground conditions and type of loop installed.
Benefits
Limitations
-renewable source for low temperature heating and
cooling energy
-space restrictions on campus may restrict size of
geoexchange field
-displaces heating and cooling energy otherwise produced
with fossil fuel combustion
-electrically driven technology
-low temperature source well suited to radiant space
heating and cooling system
Estimated at $1M-$4M
Carbon Credit “refund”
$ 70,000
Payback =
11- 45 years
Recommendation
POTENTIALLY CONNECT TO AMBIENT
LOOP TO OFFSET FUTURE LOADS
- Produces low temperature thermal energy which is
incompatible with the existing high-temperature
heating loop
Application Feasibility for UVic
•
Earth energy system technology is well established and effective with proper design and commissioning.
•
The campus’ thermal base load can be met with a geo-exchange system:
o
Assuming a peak load of 4000kW, Coefficient of performance = 4
o
830, 130m deep boreholes required – 20,000m required
2
•
The size of such a system may not be technically or economically viable for the campus.
•
An assessment of the specific site conditions must be conducted by an experienced hydro-geologist to
determine the size and configuration of the geo-exchange loop. If this study proves the applicability of the
site, a centralized plant with heat pumps would be required to use this low-grade energy source.
•
Although the heat pump achieves its highest efficiencies at temperatures closer to ambient.
•
Likely to be better suited to potential new ambient loop system serving the east side of campus rather than
existing system
Maintenance
Typical maintenance – Assuming W-W Heat Pump, lubrication and filter every 3 months and inspection of
refrigeration circuit every year
Page 10-8
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.13 Biomass Heating only Plant
Biomass is a renewable energy source created from
living organisms such as wood, etc., and is considered
to be “carbon neutral”
Biomass is commonly plant matter grown to generate
electricity or produce heat.
There are a number of technological options available
to make use of a wide variety of biomass types as a
renewable energy source. Conversion technologies
may release the energy directly, in the form of heat or
electricity by connecting a CHP engine.
The technology is simple, and proven, and can be
applied on a small modular basis up to large scale.
Small-scale plants can be designed to grow with
UVic’s campus site development.
Clean scrubbers are available to insure that emissions
particulates are removed from flue gases.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benefits
-
“Carbon Neutral” source of heat
Proven technology available from a number of
vendors
Potentially unlimited renewable fuel
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Annual Thermal Energy Production =
36000 MWh/year
Annual Carbon Savings =
6,500 tonnes Co2/year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
$650k – 750k/year
Capital Cost =
Biomass Plant
Limitations
capital cost
flue stack still required to disperse
combustion gases
Ash produced as waste product and
requires removal
Addition road traffic during peak heating
season
(highly dependent on type of boiler and
procurement method
$10M - $15M
Carbon Credit “refund”
$230,000
Payback =
15 - 20 years
Recommendation
SIGNIFICANT CARBON REDUCTION
POTENTIAL WITHIN PAYBACK PERIOD
Application Feasibility at UVic
•
Biomass plant sized to meet up to 80% of thermal energy demand of the campus, therefore boiler size is
4200 kW (15GJ/ hour). Gas-fired condensing boilers required as back up and to meet peak load
•
Based on a calorific value of 11GJ/tonne of biomass (hardwood) approximately 2600 tons of fuel required per
month during winter to match peak demand.
•
Cost of biomass fuel in BC is typically 50-60% cheaper than gas, approximately $5-$8/GJ
•
Sufficient storage will be required to provide at least 24 hours worth of fuel during peak winter conditions.
•
Biomass delivered by truck, approximately 50m per truck. Approximately 30 deliveries per week during peak
winter conditions.
•
Car park #1 offers sufficient space for biomass plant, storage, and is in close proximity to the existing heating
loop.
•
UVic generates a very low quantity of wood fuel (approximately 60 tonnes of waste wood, every year)
•
There is an opportunity to harvest some of the carbon dioxide emissions form the flue gases for use in local
greenhouses and algae production plants as research opportunities.
3
Maintenance and Operation
•
Dedicated staff members likely to be required to maintain and operate a plant of this size
Page 10-9
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.14 Biomass Combined
ombined Heat and Power plant
Similar process to biomass heating above but addi
addition of
turbine allows generation of electricity
electricity.
Eqipment sizing can be thermally or electrically led.
Small-scale
scale plants can be designed to grow with UVic’s
campus site development.
There are a number of technological options available to
make use of a wide variety of biomass types as a renewable
energy source. Conversion technologies may release the
energy directly, in the
he form of heat or electricity by
connecting a CHP engine.
•
•
•
•
Benefits
onsite electricity generation displaces
dependence on grid
promotion of renewable energy generation
Depending on the CHP system chosen, high
thermal to electricity ratios can be achieved –
1.5kW th:1 kW e possible using gas turbines.
-
Limitations
Capital cost
Fossil fuel typically used to deliver fuel
to site.
flue stack
ck still required to disperse
combustion gases
Ash produced as waste product and
requires removal
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Annual Thermal Energy Production =
36,000 MWh/year
Annual Electrical Energy Production =
9000 MWh/year
Fuel requirement
54,000 MWh/ year
Annual Carbon Savings (assumes fuel is zero
carbon) =
6725 tonnes Co2/year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
$300k - $400k /year
Capital Cost =
$10M - $20M
Carbon Credit “refund”
$160,000
$160,000-$170,000/year
Payback =
22- 28 Years
Recommendation
FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED
REFINE POTENTIAL PAYBACK
TO
Application Feasibility at UVic
•
Biomass CHP plant sized to meet 80% thermal energy demand of the campus,
campus and to provide supplemental
electrical energy as a result of thermal load priority.
•
Graph opposite shows both thermally and electrically led equipment sizing. Option 1 – 15 MMBtu/hour
+1MWe (thermally led), Option 2 – 24MMBtu/hr + 4MW e (Electrically led)
•
Boiler size equivalent to thermal only option above
above. Based on a calorific value of 11GJ/tonne of biomass
(hardwood), approximately 4000 tons of fuel required per month during winter to match peak demand.
•
Cost of biomass fuel in BC is typically 50
50-60%
60% cheaper than gas, approximately $9/GJ
•
Sufficient storage
e will be required to provide at least 12hours worth of fuel during peak winter conditions.
•
Biomass delivered
ivered by truck, approximately 5
50m per truck. Up to 50 deliveries per week during peak winter
conditions.
•
Car park #1 offers sufficient space for biom
biomass
ass plant, storage, and is in close proximity to the existing heating
loop.
•
Again, there is an opportunity to harvest some of the carbon dioxide emissions form the flue gases for use in
local greenhouses and algae production plants as research opportunitie
opportunities.
•
The feasibility assumes
3
.
Maintenance and Operation
•
Dedicated staff members likely to be required to maintain and operate a plant of this size
Page 10-10
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.15 Wind
The cost and energy production depends entirely on the turbine location and size. The estimates stated
here were produced assuming averaged UVic wind conditions and a 250 kW turbine, with a 30m hub
height and 30 m rotor diameter.
0.2
Wind turbines, or wind mills, have been used for centuries to
pump water.
0.18
•
In recent years the technology has improved making wind
turbines an efficient producer of electricity.
0.16
•
Turbines come in all sizes and are typically mounted on an
independent tower.
Benefits
-
onsite electricity generation displaces
dependence on grid
promotion of renewable energy generation
Limitations
capital cost
location requirements
power generation ability depends on
availability of wind speeds within suitable
velocity range
0.14
Probability (%)
•
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Application Feasibility at UVic
0
1
•
Wind turbines are most efficient at
generating electricity when the average
wind speed is above 5m/s.
•
The average wind speed typically
increase with height, especially in urban
environments as friction from buildings,
etc are reduced.
•
•
•
At UVic, the average wind speed up to a
height of 30m is approximately 4m/s,
based on data from the Canadian Wind
Energy Atlas website and the weather
station on top of the Social Sciences and
Mathematics building on the UVic
campus.
The
tree
density
and
buildings
surrounding the UVic campus will also
create a boundary layer of slower moving
air which would reduce the effectiveness of a wind turbine or require a very tall tower.
Another option would be to install the tower off campus where wind conditions are more favorable. An offsite
wind turbine would feed electricity to the grid indirectly reducing the electrical load at the site.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Wind speed (km/hr)
Social Science wind speed measurements
NOTE: The cost and energy production depends entirely on the turbine location and size. The estimates stated here were
produced assuming averaged UVic wind conditions and a 250 kW turbine, with a 30m hub height and 30 m rotor diameter.
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Annual Energy Production =
96 MWh/year (per turbine)
Annual Carbon Savings =
2688 Kg Co2/year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
$4,783/year
Capital Cost (Unit and delivery) =
$250,000 @ $1000/kW
Payback =
52 years
Recommendation
EXCESSIVE PAYBACK
Maintenance and Operation
•
Wind turbines require yearly maintenance
Page 10-11
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Annual Solar Thermal Availability vs. Heating Load Profile
10.16 Solar Thermal
1200
The numerous solar thermal collector technologies include water based flat plate
7
collectors and heat pipe type evacuated tube collectors.
•
Collectors are typical mounted on a south-facing exposure and connected to a
heat storage device.
•
Dark, reflective surfaces absorb direct and/or indirect sunlight and transfer the
heat via a heat transfer fluid.
•
The fluid is pumped through or across the collector and circulated to a heat
exchanger which transfers the energy to a storage medium, such as water in a
tank.
•
Experience has shown Solar thermal can typically offset 10% of a building’s
energy demand.
1000
800
GJ / month
•
400
Evacuated Solar Thermal
Benefits
heat energy from the sun displaces conventional
boiler energy (either gas or electric)
reduced CO, SOx, NOx, CO2 and GHG emissions
reduced dependence on fossil fuels
Limitations
capital cost
evacuated tubes may contain refrigerants
Thermal energy generation is dependent
on the availability of sufficient solar
radiation
Application Feasibility at UVic
Solar hot water heating is widely used throughout Canada and the
world
•
•
200
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
500m2 collector
2000m2 collector
Outdoor Aquatic Centre
3000m2 collector
1000m2 collector
Residential domestic hot water
2
Annual Energy Production =
720 kWh/m
Ideal collector location requires south to west facing exposure,
angled between 15 and 45 degrees
Annual Carbon Savings =
131 Kg CO2/m . year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
40 $/m .yr
Significant large, un-shaded areas on campus provide ideal
location for solar thermal e.g. parking lots. Approximately
2
40,000m of parking lot available
Capital Cost (Unit and delivery) =
500 - 1000 $/m
Payback =
14 - 25 years
2
12
Months
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
•
•
600
2
2
2
2
Approximately 8000 m - 1000m of suitable roof area on key
buildings, in vicinity to existing heating loop. The addition of thermal storage (e.g. the existing heating loop)
can extend the usefulness.
•
A solar access By-Law may be required to protect any solar thermal installation from over-shadowing by
nearby high-rise developments.
•
18,000m of solar thermal panel required to meet UVic’s hot water base load during July and August
2
Recommendation
FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED TO
REFINE POTENTIAL PAYBACK AND
BUSINESS CASE
Maintenance and Operation
•
Has a lifespan of up to 25 years and requires very little preventative maintenance.
•
Collector surface must be kept clean. Can be part of yearly maintenance strategy
Page 10-12
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Annual Solar Electricity Availability vs. Electrical Load Profile
10.17 Solar Photovoltaic Cells
900000
Photovoltaic (PV) Cells consisting of crystalline
material “convert” photons from the sun into direct
current electricity. An inverter converts the DC into
alternating current which can be used by buildings or
fed into the local electricity gird.
•
800000
700000
Photovoltaic Panels
Benefits
-
Onsite electricity generation displaces
dependence on grid
Can be integrated with building envelope
displacing envelope costs
Limitations
PV. Capacity degrades over time and
made of toxic materials
Low conversion efficiency
Requires adequate solar exposure
Electrical power generation dependent on
the availability of sufficient solar radiation
Application Feasibility at UVic
•
•
•
•
kWh / month
600000
Solar Photovoltaic cells can be integrated with
building envelope or mounted in arrays independent
from the building
•
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Months
Ideal solar PV location requires south to west facing exposure, angled between 15 and 45 degrees ideally at
an angle equal to the latitude of the site.
Significant large, un-shaded areas on campus provide ideal location for photovoltaic panels e.g. parking lots.
2
Approximately 40,000m of parking lot available
Electricity Demand
1000m2 PV Panels
2000m2 PV Panels
3000m2 PV Panels
4000m2 PV Panels
5000m2 PV Panels
2
Approximately 11000m of suitable roof area on key buildings, in vicinity to existing heating loop. The addition
of thermal storage (e.g. the existing heating loop) can extend the usefulness.
A solar access By-Law may be required to protect any solar thermal installation from over-shadowing by
nearby high-rise developments.
Maintenance and Operation
•
Has a lifespan of up to 20 years and requires very little preventative maintenance.
•
Collector surface must be kept clean. Can be part of yearly maintenance strategy
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
2
Annual Energy Production =
150 kWh/m
Annual Carbon Savings =
4-5 Kg CO2/m . year
Annual Energy Cost savings =
7.5-10 $/m .yr
Capital Cost =
$1000-1400/m .yr
Payback =
100 years
2
2
2
Recommendation
EXCESSIVE PAYBACK
Page 10-13
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.18 Hydrogen Fuel Cell
•
•
•
•
•
Fuel cell technology is often promoted as one of the most promising sustainable solutions using “clean”
energy from hydrogen (H2) ending our dependence on fossil fuels. The technology uses H2 as “fuel” and
converts it to electricity and water.
H2 however is not naturally available in a useable state and must be extracted from other sources through
energy intensive processes. In this sense, H2 is an “energy carrier” similar to electricity. Hydrogen fuel cells
require pure H2 gas; the most common source of H2 is fossil fuel, typically natural gas. When H2 is made from
natural gas nitrogen oxides are released that are 58 times more potent green house gases than CO2.
H2 use in a fuel cell is a “clean” process; H2 production is not a clean process. Furthermore, due to the
extremely low volumetric energy density at standard temperature and pressure conditions, H2 needs to be
o
compressed to high pressure (2,000 psig) and cooled to low temperatures (-253 C) for storage and transport.
The overall external energy input required for generation and compression process results in an energy
conversion ratio of 6 units in to 1 unit out.
Though hydrogen can be extracted from water, electrolysis uses more energy to produce the hydrogen than
the yield of the fuel cell, which turns it into a net energy sink. Electricity for electrolysis can be generated by
using solar power.
Benefits
-
no combustion
combined heat and power potential
low emissions, just water vapour and heat
Limitations
hydrogen source from conventional fuels
electrolysis from H2O is energy intensive
energy storage, not source
high manufacturing costs
net energy sink
Application Feasibility at UVic
• Fuel cells are able to function as stand-alone generating systems; they can be placed within a distributed
power network with each system serving its own building or development while supplying the excess to
the grid.
• In spite of above mentioned serious thermodynamic limitations, fuel cells have a high potential to receive
funding and attention and may be worth a demonstration project. For example on February 21, 2005,
Energy and Mines Minister Richard Neufeld announced $2 million in funding to Fuel Cells Canada to
support hydrogen and fuel cell innovation.
• Fuel cell technology does not have a bright future as a replacement for fossil fuels. Producing H2 from
water by electrolysis is a net energy sink. There is a certain amount of “wishful thinking” surrounding this
technology and an unwise dependence on the hope that future technology will fill the gaps in our currently
flawed logic.
Maintenance and Operation
•
Fuel Cells require little maintenance.
•
On-site hydrogen generation or storage and piping distribution infrasturcutre requires ertaordinary safety
measures due to highly explosive nature of hydrogen.
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Annual Energy Production =
Not Commercially Available-
Annual Carbon Savings =
Unknown
Annual Energy Cost savings =
Unknown
Estimated Capital Cost =
$5000-7000/kW
Payback =
Unknown at present
Recommendation
EXPERIMENTAL
AND
PAYBACK. POTENTIAL
PROJECT/SHOWCASE
UNKNOWN
RESEARCH
Page 10-14
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.19 Concentrated Solar Electric Generation
• Concentrated solar-electric
electric systems generally consist of
parabolic reflectors arranged to heat thermal heat transfer fluid,
which then can be used to operate an Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC) turbine to generate electricity. They can also be used to
generate
ate steam to power a steam turbine and electrical
generator.
• A current example of this type of technology is being planned
and designed for an installation in Medicine Hat, Alberta,
consisting of 1.3 MW generating capacity, using a collector field
approximately
mately 100m x 100m (10,000 sq.M)
sq.M). Capital cost = $9M
Benefits
Renewable energy source
no combustion
combined heat and power
potential
-
Limitations
no night-time utilization
Low/nil utilization during non-sunshine
sunshine hours of the day.
capital cost & Space
ce requirements
solar to electricity efficiency = 11%
solar hours and climate create challenges for more than
summertime supplemental operation
Application Feasibility at UVic
•
•
•
A 2 MW electrical load would require approximately 20,000 sq.M of the site area,
ar
and that would only
satisfy the baseline electrical load during full sunshine daytime hours only. (Based on the Medicine
Hat plant being designed)
Yearly electrical consumption at UVic = 55,000 MWh. Assume Concentrated solar sized to meet 25%
of the yearly
arly electrical demand = 13,750 MWh.
At a capital cost of $
$800k/MWh, total capital cost = $11 Billion to meet 25% of the Campus’ electrical
consumption
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
Annual Energy Production =
13,750 MWH (25% of UVic’s Electrical
Consumptio
Consumption)
Annual Carbon Savings =
385 Tonnes
Annual Energy Cost savings =
$770,000
Estimated Capital Cost =
Payback =
$800k/MWH = $11 Billion (Experimental)
Technology not commercially available
Excessive
Recommendation
EXPERIMENTAL
AND
EXCESSIVE
CAPITA COST AND PAYBACK.
CAPITAL
Page 10-15
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
10.20 Summary
The following matrix summarizes the feasibility of the thirteen energy generation systems presented in the above
sections using the cost/benefit criteria outlined in Section 5.2. The traffic light colour scheme has been used to reflect
the appropriateness of each of the criteria; red reflects “Less Appropriate”, green represents “More Appropriate”.
Energy Recovery
Strategies
Energy
Reduction
Strategies
Energy Generation System
Commercial
Availability
Carbon Reduction
Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early
Implementation
Potential
Funding Availability
Maintenance,
Operation and
Staffing Cost
Recommendation
Condensing Boilers
Local Domestic Hot Water
Heaters
CRD Sewage Heat Recovery
Heat Recovery From Enterprise
Centre
Energy from Solid Organic
Waste
Geoexchange Heat Pump
Low/Zero Carbon Solutions
Biomass Heating
Biomass Cogeneration
Wind
Solar Thermal
Solar Photovoltaic Cells
Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Concentrated Solar
Less Appropriate
More Appropriate
Page 10-16
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11 ENERGY GENERATION COMBINATIONS
11.1 Introduction
Various combinations of the five most feasible technologies have been analyzed in the following sub-sections in order to
identify the preferred solution for integration at UVic; one which maximizes energy savings and carbon reduction is
financially feasible.
The results have been presented under key sub-headings to allow comparison between combinations. For all
combinations standard assumptions have been made and are described under the relevant sub-heading below.
Combination specific sub-headings, such as those relating to biomass fuel, are provided, as required.
The simple payback has been calculated by dividing the total Capital cost by the energy cost savings.
A sensitivity analysis of the Net Present Value for each combination has also been presented. A Net Present Value (NPV)
calculation compares the value of a dollar today to the value of that same dollar in the future, taking inflation and
anticipated returns on investment into account. If the NPV of a prospective project is positive, it should be accepted.
Return on Investment scenarios of 5% and 7% have been applied to reflect UVic’s cost of borrowing and long term asset
return expectations.
A set of general assumptions for energy cost and energy cost inflation have been used for all combinations, unless
otherwise stated. The general assumptions are as follows:
Natural Gas Cost (Year 1)
Natural Gas Inflation
Electricity Cost (Year 1)
Electricity Inflation
Carbon Credit Cost (Year 1)
Carbon Credit Inflation
Maintenance Cost
11.1.1 System Size
For each combination, the revised energy baseline for UVic presented in Section 10.2 has been used to approximate the
size of each system.
Assumptions regarding the output of the various energy sources are been defined in the relevant sub-section
The sensitivity analysis has been generated by adjusting a single a single variable, such as gas price or biomass fuel
price; the chosen variable will be specific to each combination.
11.1.2 Capital Cost
A breakdown of the estimated capital cost has been presented for the main elements of each combination. The costing
information referenced from local suppliers, published cost data, and Cobalt’s experience of the market. Where a cost
range has been provided for an element, the mid-point of the range has been used estimate the capital cost required. The
margin of error applicable to the total cost is typically ± 15%.
11.1.3 Energy and Carbon Savings
The energy and carbon savings have been estimated for each potential solution in terms of kWh and tonnes,
respectively.
The results have also been presented as a percentage of UVic’s revised energy baseline following the completion of the
Continual Optimization Program, as discussed in Section 10.1.
As a reminder, the revised baseline assumptions for natural gas, electricity, and carbon emissions are set out below
•
•
•
Revised Natural Gas Consumption
Revised Electrical Consumption
Revised Carbon Emissions
= $0.05/kWh
= 5% year on year (based on projected energy costs, see Section 2.5.)
= $0.056/kWh
= 5% year on year (based on projected energy costs, see Section 2.5.)
= $25/tonne
= 2% year on year.
= 2% of capital costs, year on year (where applicable)
11.1.6 Funding Procurement Options
A brief description of the main method of procurement for each combination has been provided in this subsection. Other
funding and procurement options may be available, depending on project cost and the University’s financing options.
Some procurement options offer a turnkey solution, requiring no capital investment form UVic.
Currently there is no specific funding available from Provincial or Federal Governments for the integration of low or zero
carbon technologies into buildings. Independent negotiations between UVic and the Federal or Provincial Governments
may result in specific funding for UVic but the feasibility of this is unknown at this time.
.
11.1.7 Summary
The results of the feasibility analysis are summarized in this section. A summary table of the feasibility assessment of
each combination using the cost/benefit criteria is provided as a quick reference highlight.
= 64,400,000 kWh
= 55,000,000 kWh
= 15,850 Tonnes
11.1.4 Maintenance
A description of the maintenance burden of each combination, relative to UVic’s current maintenance regime has been
provided in this subsection.
Where there is considered to be an additional maintenance burden, maintenance costs have been estimated at 1% - 2%
of the capital cost
11.1.5 Energy Cost Savings and Payback
The energy cost savings and simple payback have been estimated for each potential solution. The energy cost savings
applies UVic’s current energy costs ($0.056/kWh for electricity and $0.05/kWh for gas) to the estimated energy savings
and includes an estimation of the carbon credit cost UVic would no longer pay due to the anticipated carbon savings.
Page 11-1
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.2 Solar Thermal
11.2.1 System Size
Solar thermal systems are generally sized to meet the base thermal load of a building(s), typically the domestic hot water
load since it remains constant for the majority of the year. At UVic, the base load occurs in July and is likely to consist of a
small amount of space heating load, in addition to domestic hot water load, because of the building types and energy
demands.
Solar Thermal Cost Breakdown
Description
Quantity
Solar Thermal
Unit
Cost/unit
Total Cost
$
$
kW
800
10,400,000
Includes
Installation Cost
20m of new pipe
per mechanical
room
Mechanical Room pipework,
pumps, etc.
400
m
150
60,000
Connecting the solar thermal panels to the district heating loop will allow summertime space heating load, in addition to
domestic hot water load, to be met. The loop will distribute thermal energy from locations of low demand and large
building footprint (non lab buildings with large roof areas) to locations with high demand and small building footprint (i.e.
high-rise residential buildings).
Heating distribution pipework
100
m
400
40,000
Trenching
100
m
150
15,000
Solar Thermal Connection
Points
20
#
5000
100,000
Supplementary DHW heaters
24
#
10000
240,000
11.2.2 Capital Costs
From discussions with a number of solar thermal providers, the capital expenditure required to install a complete solar
thermal system based on “vacuum tube” or “flat plate” solar collection, including the necessary storage, is currently in the
2
2
range of $700/m to $900/m of panel for large scale arrays.
A breakdown of the cost involved to install an array of this size at UVic is presented in Table 11-1.
Source
13,000
The solar thermal array has been sized to meet the existing thermal base load of the central heating loop, and based on
2
the daylight hours experienced in Victoria across the year, an average panel output of 700 kWh/m .yr has been assumed;
2
a 13,000m array is required. This array size will allow the central boilers to be turned off in July and their run-time
minimized in June and August.
Local hot water generation will be required to boost the domestic hot water temperature in certain buildings and act as
back up during cloudy days, allowing the central boiler plant to remain switched off. Buildings with high thermal loads
during summer months have been identified in Table 11-3. Following completion of the Continual Optimization Program
and installation of local energy meter to each building, the domestic hot water loads can be refined.
Notes
Total
Connect parkade
solar thermal to
loop
Connect parkade
solar thermal to
loop
Connects solar
thermal arrays to
loop
RS Means
RS Means
RS Means
Provides backup
to guarantee
sufficient hot water
10,870,000
Table 11-1 Breakdown of Solar Thermal costs
11.2.6 Procurement and Funding Options
The estimated carbon savings are 1,655 tonnes per year; an 11% reduction in UVic’s carbon emissions
End user customer typically buys direct and self-finances the procurement and installation of a solar thermal system from
local suppliers. In the University’s situation, an ideal approach would be to procure the capital funding to design and
install the entire system as one project, requiring at least $11 Million. Another option would be to break this project down
into phases, not more than five, to meet smaller portions of financing. This would cost more than a single large project
approach.
A detailed breakdown of the estimated energy and carbon savings for the proposed system is set out in Table 11-3.
11.2.7 Summary
11.2.3 Energy and Carbon Savings
The estimated energy savings are 9.1M kWh per year, a 14% reduction in UVic’s thermal demand
11.2.4 Maintenance
Solar Thermal panels require very little maintenance; yearly cleaning is all that is typically required. The typical lifespan of
the panels is 20 – 25 years.
11.2.5 Energy Cost savings and Payback
The integration of a solar thermal system sized to meet the summertime thermal base load will achieve moderate
reductions in energy and carbon; 13% and 10%, respectively. Due to the high capital cost and current low energy cost the
simple payback is estimated to be 22 years. If gas prices were to increase by 10% a year, and based on a Return on
Investment (ROI) of 5%, the payback period reduces to 17 years.
An assessment of feasibility to integrate a solar thermal array at UVic using the cost/benefit criteria is summarized in
Table 11-2, below.
Table 11-3 summarizes the cost savings for the system, in year one. The low cost of energy in Canada means the simple
payback period is relatively long at 22 years. This can be reduced by assuming gas prices will rise. A sensitivity analysis
of gas prices for Returns on Investment of 5% and 7% are presented in Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2.
Page 11-2
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Criteria
Assessment
Commercial Availability
Carbon Reduction Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early Implementation Potential
Funding Availability
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
Table 11-2 Solar Thermal Cost/Benefit Summary
Page 11-3
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Location
Panel cost
Loop
Connection
Cost
Supplementary
DHW generator
m2
Number of
connections
points to
existing
heating loop
#
$
$
#
$
875
1,000
500
750
625
950
750
225
400
750
600
800
500
250
500
125
250
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
$700,000
$800,000
$400,000
$600,000
$500,000
$760,000
$600,000
$180,000
$320,000
$600,000
$480,000
$640,000
$400,000
$200,000
$400,000
$100,000
$200,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
$5,000
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
9850
20
$7,880,000
$100,000
24
Parkade
3,150
1
$2,520,000
$5,000
TOTAL
13,000
$10,400,000
$105,000
Petch
Elliott
Cunningham
Bob Wright
Commons
University Centre
McKinnon Gym
Landsdowne Residences
Craigdarroch Residences
ELW
MacLaurin
McPherson
Cornett
David Strong
Business + Economics
Clearihue
Human + Social
Development
Potential Useable
Roof area
Potential Thermal
Collection Area
m2
1,750
2,000
1,000
1,500
1,250
1,900
1,500
450
800
1,500
1,200
1,600
1,000
500
1,000
250
500
Supplementary Energy Output
DHW generator
Cost
Energy Cost
offset
Carbon
savings
Carbon
Credit
"refund"
Total Cost
Saving
kWh/yr
$
Tonnes
$
$
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
40,000
10,000
612,500
700,000
350,000
525,000
437,500
665,000
525,000
157,500
280,000
525,000
420,000
560,000
350,000
175,000
350,000
87,500
175,000
$30,625
$35,000
$17,500
$26,250
$21,875
$33,250
$26,250
$7,875
$14,000
$26,250
$21,000
$28,000
$17,500
$8,750
$17,500
$4,375
$8,750
112
128
64
96
80
122
96
29
51
96
77
102
64
32
64
16
32
2,802
3,203
1,601
2,402
2,002
3,042
2,402
721
1,281
2,402
1,922
2,562
1,601
801
1,601
400
801
33,427
38,203
19,101
28,652
23,877
36,292
28,652
8,596
15,281
28,652
22,922
30,562
19,101
9,551
19,101
4,775
9,551
$240,000
6,895,000
$344,750
1,262
$31,545
$376,295
2,205,000
$110,250
404
$10,088
$120,338
9,100,000
$455,000
1,665
$41,633
$496,633
Building Integrated Total
$240,000
Table 11-3 Solar Thermal Energy, Carbon and Cost Savings
Page 11-4
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
12,000,000
6,000,000
10,000,000
4,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
0
1
0
-2,000,000
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
-2,000,000
$
$
2,000,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
-4,000,000
-4,000,000
-6,000,000
-6,000,000
-8,000,000
-8,000,000
-10,000,000
-10,000,000
-12,000,000
Undiscounted payback
2.5% Gas Price Increase per year
7.5% Gas Price Increase per year
Figure 11-1 Solar Thermal Payback, 5% Return on Investment
-12,000,000
YEAR
Year
0% Gas Price Increase per Year
5% Gas Price Increase per year
10% Gas Price Increase per year
Undiscounted payback
2.5% Gas Price Increase per year
7.5% Gas Price Increase per year
0% Gas Price Increase per Year
5% Gas Price Increase per year
10% Gas Price Increase per year
Figure 11-2 Solar Thermal Payback, 7% Return on Investment
Page 11-5
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.3 Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers
The existing primary gas-fired boilers (Volcano Flexible Tube Boilers) serving the central heating loop are due for
replacement in the next 10-15 years. Replacing the standard efficiency boilers with gas-fired condensing boilers will
provide energy savings, but, the savings will only be realized if the loop temperature can be lowered in the summer
months. High efficient gas-fired condensing boilers and a solar thermal array complement each other well, and the
feasibility of this combination has been assessed in this option.
The simple payback period has reduced to 20 years with the inclusion of gas-fired condensing boilers. A sensitivity
analysis of gas prices for Returns on Investment of 5% and 7% are presented in Figure 11-13 and Figure 11-24,
respectively. At a ROI of 5%, gas prices need to increase by at least 5%, year on year for the investment to be
worthwhile, based on a 25 year period. At a ROI of 7% gas prices will need to increase by at least 7.5% year on year.
Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers
Description
Quantity
Unit
11.3.1 System Size
For this combination the solar thermal array from Section 13.2 has been combined with gas-fired condensing boilers
sized to meet UVic’s current peak thermal load of 16,000kW.
The gas-fired boilers will supplement the thermal output from the solar thermal array for domestic hot water consumption
during peak winter times, and act as back-up should any part of the solar thermal system fail.
11.3.2 Capital Costs
The solar thermal array size and costs from section 13.2 have been assumed.
For the gas-fired condensing boilers, it has been assumed that the cost of replacing the existing boiler plants at ELW and
McKinnon with standard gas-fired boilers can be deducted since the boilers will require replacement within the next 10
years, regardless. The additional capital cost for the provision of gas-fired condensing boilers over and above standard
boilers has been assumed to be $40/kW.
A breakdown of the capital costs involved to install combination of technologies at UVic is presented in Table 11-4 below.
Cost/unit
Total Cost
$
$
The estimated carbon savings is nearly 2,000 tonnes per year, a 13% reduction in UVic’s carbon emissions
A detailed breakdown of the estimated energy and carbon savings for the proposed system is set out in Table 11-3.
To calculate the energy savings attributed to the gas-fired condensing boilers, an assessment of when the loop
temperature is likely to be low enough for condensing (and therefore energy savings to be achieved) has been made
using UVic’s gas consumption data and the heating degree days experienced in Victoria.
For months when condensing can occur, an efficiency factor has been applied to supplementary heating demand to
calculate the energy savings. If the loop temperature can be low enough for the whole month, an efficiency factor of 0.88
has been applied to reflect the 12% efficiency improvement of gas-fired condensing boilers over standard boilers. Where
condensing can only occur for a portion of a month, the efficiency factor has been prorated accordingly.
During the peak winter months, the loop temperature will need to operate at its existing high temperature to provide
sufficient heat to each building, therefore no condensing will be possible. In this situation, the efficiency of the gas-fired
condensing boiler will assumed to be equal to standard boilers, i.e. efficiency improvement of 1. See “efficiency
improvements due to condensing boilers” column in Table 11-6.
11.3.2 Maintenance
Solar Thermal panels require very little maintenance; yearly cleaning is all that is typically required. The typical lifespan of
the panels is 20 – 25 years.
Gas-fired condensing boilers will be no more onerous in terms of maintenance than UVic’s existing boiler installation.
11.3.3 Cost savings and Payback
Table 11-3 summarizes the cost savings for the system, in year one.
Source
Solar Thermal
13000
kW
800
10,400,000
Includes
Installation Cost
Gas-fired Condensing Boilers
16000
kW
70
1,120,000
Incremental cost
Mechanical Room pipework,
pumps, etc.
500
m
150
75,000
20m of new pipe
per mechanical
room
Heating distribution pipework
100
m
400
40,000
Trenching
100
m
150
15,000
Solar Thermal Connection
Points
20
#
5000
100,000
Supplementary DHW heaters
24
#
10000
240,000
11.3.1 Energy and Carbon Savings
The estimated energy savings are 10.8M kWh per year, a 17% reduction in UVic’s thermal energy demand
Notes
Total
Connect parkade
solar thermal to
loop
Connect parkade
solar thermal to
loop
Connects solar
thermal arrays to
loop
RS Means
RS Means
RS Means
Provides backup
to guarantee
sufficient hot water
11,990,000
Table 11-4 Breakdown of Costs for Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers
11.3.1 Procurement and Funding Options
End user customer typically buys direct and self-finances the procurement and installation of a solar thermal system from
local suppliers. In the University’s situation, an ideal approach would be to procure the capital funding to design and
install the entire system as one project, requiring at least $11 Million. Another option would be to break this project down
into phases, not more than five, to meet smaller portions of financing. This would cost more than a single large project
approach.
11.3.2 Summary
The integration of a solar thermal system sized to meet the summertime thermal base load will achieve moderate
reductions in energy and carbon; 13% and 10%, respectively. Due to the high capital cost and current low energy cost the
simple payback is estimated to be 22 years. If gas prices were to increase by 10% a year, and based on a Return on
Investment (ROI) of 5%, the payback period reduces to 17 years.
Page 11-6
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
An assessment of feasibility to integrate a biomass boiler plant at UVic using the cost/benefit criteria is summarized in
Table 11-2, below.
Criteria
Assessment
Commercial Availability
Carbon Reduction Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early Implementation Potential
Funding Availability
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
Table 11-5 Solar Thermal + Condensing Boiler Cost/Benefit Summary
Page 11-7
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Solar Thermal
Central
Solar Thermal
Heating Loop
output
Demand
Month
kWh
5,547,019
4,988,890
5,551,794
5,451,569
3,496,403
1,762,564
1,191,035
1,719,339
3,845,506
4,074,933
5,563,145
7,539,135
50,731,331
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Carbon savings
Carbon Credit
from Solar
'Refund'
Thermal
kWh
293,552
472,016
754,765
1,018,946
1,134,746
1,225,631
1,308,948
1,249,240
1,059,501
679,686
353,985
245,832
9,796,849
tonnes
54
86
138
186
208
224
240
229
194
124
65
45
1,793
$
1,343
2,159
3,453
4,662
5,191
5,607
5,988
5,715
4,847
3,110
1,619
1,125
44,821
Displaced
energy cost
$
14,678
23,601
37,738
50,947
56,737
61,282
65,447
62,462
52,975
33,984
17,699
12,292
489,842
Gas Fired Condesing Boilers - Supplementary Boiler
Energy
Savings
Condensing
Supplemntar
Gas-Fired
achieved
Carbon
Boiler Efficiency
y Heating
Condensing
using
savings from
compared with a
Boiler Output
Load
Condensing
Biomass
Standard Boiler
Boilers
Boiler
(less than 1 =
more efficient)
kWh
kWh
kWh
tonnes
5,253,468
1
5,253,468
0
0
4,516,874
1
4,516,874
0
0
4,797,029
1
4,797,029
0
0
4,432,622
0.95
4,210,991
221631
41
2,361,657
0.88
2,078,258
283399
52
536,933
0.88
472,501
64432
12
0
0
0
0
0
470,098
0.88
413,687
56412
10
2,786,005
0.88
2,451,684
334321
61
3,395,246
0.95
3,225,484
169762
31
5,209,159
1
5,209,159
0
0
7,293,304
1
7,293,304
0
0
41,052,396
39,922,439
1,129,957
207
Total
Carbon
'Credit'
Refund
Displaced
energy cost
Total Energy
Savings
$
$0
$0
$0
$1,014
$1,297
$295
$0
$258
$1,530
$777
$0
$0
$5,170
$
$0
$0
$0
$11,082
$14,170
$3,222
$0
$2,821
$16,716
$8,488
$0
$0
$56,498
kWh
293,552
472,016
754,765
1,240,577
1,418,145
1,290,063
1,308,948
1,305,652
1,393,821
849,449
353,985
245,832
$10,926,806
Total Carbon Total Carbon Total Energy
Savings
Credit Refund Cost Savings
tonnes
54
86
138
227
260
236
240
239
255
155
65
45
2,000
$
$1,343
$2,159
$3,453
$5,676
$6,488
$5,902
$5,988
$5,973
$6,377
$3,886
$1,619
$1,125
$49,990
$
$14,678
$23,601
$37,738
$62,029
$70,907
$64,503
$65,447
$65,283
$69,691
$42,472
$17,699
$12,292
$546,340
Table
11-6 Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers- Breakdown of Carbon and Energy Cost Savings
20000000
10000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
5000000
$
0
1
$
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
-5000000
-5000000
-10000000
-15000000
-10000000
YEAR
-15000000
YEAR
Series4
0% Gas Price Increase per Year
2.5% Gas Price Increase per year
5% Gas Price Increase per year
Series4
0% Gas Price Increase per Year
7.5% Gas Price Increase per year
10% Gas Price Increase per year
2.5% Gas Price Increase per year
5% Gas Price Increase per year
7.5% Gas Price Increase per year
10% Gas Price Increase per year
Figure 11-3 Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers Payback, 5% ROI
Figure 11-4 Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers Payback, 7% ROI
Page 11-8
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.4 Biomass Boiler + Gas-fired Condensing Boilers
8,000,000
11.4.1 System Size
7,000,000
A biomass boiler size of 4,200kW capacity is proposed to maximize the run-time at 100% load, which helps to maximize
efficiency of the system, and limit the necessary turndown to approximately 50% during the summer months. A biomass
boiler of this size will provide 65% of the yearly heating demand at UVic, see Figure 11-5. Following completion of the
Continual Optimization Program, availability of hourly meter data for the consumption of thermal energy at each building
should be used to refine the biomass boiler size.
5,000,000
kWh
A boiler of this size will be meet 25% of the peak heating load, with the remainder being met through the use of gas-fired
condensing boilers. Note that the peak heating load is estimated to occur for less than 20% of the total heating plant
operating hours. A sketch of a typical biomass boiler layout is presented in Figure 11-8
6,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
It has been assumed that the supplementary peak heat capacity is provided by new gas-fired condensing boilers, sized to
meet peak heating load of 16,000 kW and provide back-up to the biomass boiler.
2,000,000
11.4.2 Capital Costs
The capital cost of a biomass boiler system is highly dependant on system configuration, scope definition and project
delivery model. Based on discussions with a number of biomass boiler providers, the capital expenditure required is
currently in the range of $1,650/kW to $2,500/kW to supply and install a biomass heating only plant.
1,000,000
0
Jan
For the gas-fired condensing boilers, it has been assumed that the cost of replacing the existing boiler plants at ELW and
McKinnon with standard gas-fired boilers can be deducted from this capital cost since the boilers will require replacement
within the next 10 years regardless. The additional cost for the provision of gas-fired condensing boilers over standard
boilers has been assumed at $40/kW.
A breakdown of the cost involved to install an array of this size at UVic is presented in Table 11-1
11.4.1 Fuel
There are currently no regulated utility providers that supply scrap wood or bio-mass fuel feedstock so fuel costs are
potentially un-regulated and volatile.
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
4200kW Biomass Boiler Output
Supplementary Heating Demand
Figure 11-5 Monthly Profile of Biomass boilers output and Supplementary Heating Requirement
Ministry of Environment (MoE) regulates the emissions from agricultural biomass boilers using a standard. All other
applications require a permit, which is negotiated on an individual basis with the relevant regional department of the MoE.
MoE staff usually applies the agricultural boiler standard, see below.
From discussions with leading biomass providers and industry experts, there is confidence of sufficient fuel being
available on Vancouver Island, in the long term. The price of biomass fuel is currently increasing and long term pricing of
$40-$80 per Oven Dried Tonne (ODT) for long term supply contracts are currently being quoted.
Based on a calorific value of 15-18 GJ of per ODT of biomass, the energy cost of biomass will potentially be $3- $6 per
GJ ($0.01/kWh – $0.022/kWh), over 50% lower than UVic’s current natural gas cost.
During the peak winter months, approximately 5-6 deliveries of biomass will be required per day. On-site fuel storage is
typically provided for up to 48 hours.
The next step is to complete a detailed fuel study, prior to beginning the design phase of the biomass system.
The risks relating to fuel source, delivery and cost can be mitigated by procuring a turnkey operation form a Utility or
ESCo.
3
11.4.1 Emissions
There are currently no set Provincial emission thresholds for biomass-fuelled energy plants in BC, apart from boilers used
for agricultural applications, such as Greenhouses.
In Metro Vancouver, particulate emission thresholds have been set at 18mg/m with opacity not exceeding 5%. Modern
3
biomass boiler plants typically achieve particulate levels lower than the 18mg/m threshold, and with opacity of only 1%.
Biomass plants also operate in certain States in America where Carbon Monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) limits have been set. CO and VOC emissions from burning biomass are typically lower
than natural gas; Reductions in NOx emissions are more difficult but can be achieved using the Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (NCR) and continuously achieve reductions of 40%-70%.
Page 11-9
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Biomass Boiler + Condensing Boilers
Description
Quantity
Figure 11-6 provides a net present value calculation and associated sensitivity analysis for return on investment
scenarios of 5% and 7%, reflecting UVic’s cost of borrowing and long term asset return expectations.
Unit
Cost/unit
Total Cost
$
$
Notes
Source
11.4.5 Procurement and Funding Options
Biomass Boiler - Heating Only
4200
kW
2000
8,400,000
Average estimated
cost
Biomass
Boiler
Suppliers
Gas Fired Condensing Boilers
16000
kW
40
640,000
Extra over cost for
condensing in
place of standard
Boiler supplier
New Energy hub building
Plantroom pipework, pumps,
etc.
1000
m2
2500
2,500,000
RS Means
100
m
150
15,000
RS Means
Heating distribution pipework
100
m
400
40,000
RS Means
Trenching
100
m
150
15,000
RS Means
2
#
20000
40,000
Building heat exchangers
Total
Even with an 8% yearly increase in biomass fuel costs from $6/GJ, the payback period only increase to 10-12 years.
Connect new
energy centre to
loop
11,650,000
Table 11-6 Biomass Boiler + Condensing Boiler Cost Breakdown
11.4.2 Energy and Carbon Savings
The estimated purchased energy savings are 32.5M kWh per year; a 50% reduction in UVic’s thermal energy demand.
The estimated carbon savings is nearly 6000 tonnes per year; a 38% reduction in UVic’s carbon emissions.
A detailed breakdown of the estimated energy and carbon savings for the proposed system is set out in Table 11-3
11.4.3 Maintenance
Biomass boilers typically require twice yearly shutdowns for maintenance. They are a higher maintenance burden than
gas-fired boilers, and typically require a, a dedicated team of 1-2 staff members will be required to maintain and operate a
plant of this size. The biomass boiler output reduction noted during the summer, in Figure 11-5, reflects an amount of
days of downtime for maintenance.
Gas-fired condensing boilers will be no more onerous in terms of maintenance than UVic’s existing boiler installation.
11.4.4 Energy Cost savings and Payback
There are three main methods through which to procure a biomass heating plant, summarized below, from direct
ownership to turn-key operation. All three are valid for implementation at UVic.
1. Direct Sale – End user customer buys direct and self-finances the project based on internal capital hurdle rates.
Typical for industrial customers, select federal agencies, municipalities and universities. Typically has the longest
procurement timelines.
2. Utilities (Build-Own-Operate-Maintain) – A 3rd party utility finances, owns, operates and sells energy to
multiple/single end users. Regulated utilities work energy costs into a rate base for the customer(s), increasingly
common for fiscally constrained universities, hospital, military bases.
3. ESCO (Energy Services Companies) – ESCO installs energy equipment, guarantees savings/ energy
displacement for end user. 3rd party debt finances the project. End users own the asset at the end of the ESCO
term.
Options 2 and 3 eliminate the need for UVic to provide the required capital funding and the Utility or ESCO will the risks
relating to biomass fuel provision and cost.
11.4.6 Summary
The introduction of biomass boilers offers the potential to significantly reduce the thermal energy consumption and
corresponding carbon emissions from UVic’s Gordon Head Campus.
The associated energy cost reductions are sufficient to offset the high capital costs; the simple payback is estimated to be
12 years. Even if the price of biomass was to increase by 8% per year, the payback would only increase to 18 years,
based on a ROI of 5%.
An assessment of feasibility to integrate a biomass boiler plant at UVic using the cost/benefit criteria is summarized in
Table 11-7, below.
Criteria
Assessment
Commercial Availability
Carbon Reduction Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
In addition to the assumptions set out in section 13.1, a biomass plant capital cost of $2000/kW and a biomass fuel cost
of $6/GJ have been used to calculate the energy costs and payback. Table 11-8 summarizes the cost savings for the
system in year one.
Early Implementation Potential
Based on the above assumptions, the estimated simple payback has been calculated to be 12 years.
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
Funding Availability
Figure 11-6 and
Table 11-7 Biomass Boiler + Condensing Boiler Cost/Benefit Summary
Page 11-10
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Biomass - Primary Boiler
Monthly Hot
water load
kWh
5,547,019
4,988,890
5,551,794
5,451,569
3,496,403
1,762,564
1,191,035
1,719,339
3,845,506
4,074,933
5,563,145
7,539,135
50,731,331
Carbon
Biomass
'Credit'
boiler output Carbon savings
Reduction
from Biomass
Boiler
kWh
tonnes
$
3,124,800
572
$14,296
2,822,400
516
$12,912
3,124,800
572
$14,296
3,024,000
553
$13,835
3,124,800
572
$14,296
1,762,564
323
$8,064
1,191,035
218
$5,449
1,719,339
315
$7,866
3,024,000
553
$13,835
3,124,800
572
$14,296
3,024,000
553
$13,835
3,124,800
572
$14,296
32,191,337
5,891
$147,275
Gas Fired Condesing Boilers - Supplementary Boiler
Displaced
energy cost
(Nat. Gas)
Biomass
cost
$
$156,240
$141,120
$156,240
$151,200
$156,240
$88,128
$59,552
$85,967
$151,200
$156,240
$151,200
$156,240
$1,609,567
$
$78,120
$70,560
$78,120
$75,600
$78,120
$44,064
$29,776
$42,983
$75,600
$78,120
$75,600
$78,120
$804,783
Energy cost Supplemntary
saving
Heating Load
$
$78,120
$70,560
$78,120
$75,600
$78,120
$44,064
$29,776
$42,983
$75,600
$78,120
$75,600
$78,120
$804,783
kWh
2,422,219
2,166,490
2,426,994
2,427,569
371,603
0
0
0
821,506
950,133
2,539,145
4,414,335
18,539,993
Condensing Boiler
Efficiency
compared with a
Standard Boiler
Gas-Fired
Condensing
Boiler Output
1
1
1
0.95
0.88
0
0
0
0.88
0.95
1
1
kWh
2,422,219
2,166,490
2,426,994
2,306,190
327,011
0
0
0
722,925
902,626
2,539,145
4,414,335
18,227,935
Energy Savings
Carbon savings
achieved using
from Biomass
Condensing
Boiler
Boilers
kWh
0
0
0
121378
44592
0
0
0
98581
47507
0
0
312,058
tonnes
0
0
0
22
8
0
0
0
18
9
0
0
57
Total
Carbon
'Credit'
Refund
Displaced
energy cost
Total Energy
Savings
Total
Carbon
Savings
Total Carbon
Credit Refund
Total
Energy
Cost
Savings
$
$0
$0
$0
$555
$204
$0
$0
$0
$451
$217
$0
$0
$1,428
$
$0
$0
$0
$6,069
$2,230
$0
$0
$0
$4,929
$2,375
$0
$0
$15,603
kWh
3,124,800
2,822,400
3,124,800
3,145,378
3,169,392
1,762,564
1,191,035
1,719,339
3,122,581
3,172,307
3,024,000
3,124,800
$32,503,395
tonnes
572
516
572
576
580
323
218
315
571
581
553
572
5,948
$
$14,296
$12,912
$14,296
$14,390
$14,500
$8,064
$5,449
$7,866
$14,286
$14,513
$13,835
$14,296
$148,703
$
$78,120
$70,560
$78,120
$81,669
$80,350
$44,064
$29,776
$42,983
$80,529
$80,495
$75,600
$78,120
$820,386
Table 11-8 Biomass Boiler + Condensing Boiler - Energy, Carbon and Energy Cost Savings
15000000
20000000
10000000
15000000
5000000
10000000
$
5000000
0
$
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
-5000000
-5000000
-10000000
-10000000
-15000000
-15000000
YEAR
Year
Undiscounted payback
0% Biomass Price Increase per year
Undiscounted payback
0% Biomass Price Increase per year
4% Biomass Price Increase per year
6% Biomass Price Increase per year
4% Biomass Price Increase per year
6% Biomass Price Increase per year
8% Biomass Price Increase per year
Figure 11-6 Biomass + Condensing Boilers Payback, 5% ROI
8% Biomass Price Increase per year
Figure 11-7 Biomass + Condensing Boilers Payback, 7% ROI
Page 11-11
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Figure 11-8 Typical Biomass Boiler Equipment Size. Gasification plant shown but other types will be similar in size
Page 11-12
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.5 Biomass + Solar Thermal + Condensing gas-fired boilers (Back-up)
8000000
Combining a Biomass boiler and solar thermal array will potentially offer significant savings in energy costs and carbon.
However, both technologies serve the same load
7000000
11.5.1 System Size
6000000
2
The solar thermal array from Section 13.2 (13000m ) and biomass boiler size defined in section 13.4 (4200kW) have
been used in this combination; see Figure 11-9.
kWh
The gas-fired condensing boilers and biomass heating plant have been sized to meet UVic’s peak thermal load of
16000kW in order to supplement the thermal output from the solar thermal array during peak winter times, and to act as a
full back-up should any part of the solar thermal system or the biomass boiler fail.
5000000
4000000
3000000
11.5.2 Capital Costs
2000000
The capital cost of a biomass boiler system is highly dependant on system configuration, scope split, project delivery
model. Based on discussions with a number of biomass boiler providers, the capital expenditure required is currently in
the range of $1650/kW to $2500/kW.
1000000
For the gas-fired condensing boilers, it has been assumed that the cost of replacing the existing boiler plants at ELW and
McKinnon with standard gas-fired boilers can be deducted from this capital cost since the boilers will require replacement
within the next 10 years regardless. The additional cost for the provision of gas-fired condensing boilers over standard
boilers has been assumed at $40/kW.
A breakdown of the combined capital cost of all three elements is presented in Table 11-1; nearly 50% of the cost is
attributed to the solar thermal system.
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
YEAR
Solar Thermal output
Potential Biomass boiler output
Supplementary Heating Load (Gas Boilers)
Figure 11-9 Monthly Profile of Solar Thermal output, Biomass boilers output and Supplementary Heating Requirement
11.5.2 Maintenance
11.5.3 Biomass Fuel
The fuel cost assumptions in Section 13.3 remain valid for this option.
The biomass boiler remains the dominant source of thermal energy during the winter and will still require approximately 56 deliveries of biomass per day. On-site fuel storage should remain at 48 hours worth, as a minimum requirement.
The next step is to complete a detailed fuel study, prior to beginning the design phase of the biomass system.
The risks relating to fuel source, delivery and cost can be mitigated by procuring a turnkey operation form a Utility or
ESCo.
11.5.4 Biomass Emissions
As discussed in Section 13.3, there are currently no set Provincial emission thresholds for biomass-fuelled energy plants
in B, apart from boilers used for agricultural applications, such as Greenhouses.
The thresholds discussed in 13.3 will also be valid for this solution.
11.5.1 Energy and Carbon Savings
The estimated energy savings are 37.4M kWh per year; a 58% reduction in UVic’s thermal energy cost demand.
The estimated carbon savings is nearly 6845 tonnes per year; a 43% reduction in UVic’s carbon emissions.
A detailed breakdown of the estimated energy and carbon savings for the proposed system is set out in Table 11-3
Solar Thermal panels require very little maintenance; yearly cleaning is all that is typically required. The typical lifespan of
the panels is 20 – 25 years.
The biomass boiler will be shut down during the month of July when the solar thermal output is sufficient to meet the
heating demand providing a good opportunity to carry out maintenance. A dedicated team of 1-2 staff members will still
be required to maintain and operate a plant of this size. For turnkey operations, the maintenance staffing is typically the
responsibility of the provider.
Gas-fired condensing boilers are no more onerous to maintain than UVic’s existing boiler installation.
11.5.3 Energy Cost savings and Payback
Table 11-11 summarizes the cost savings for the system in year one and is based on assumptions set out for each of the
systems in previous sections.
Based on the above assumptions, the estimated simple payback has been calculated to be 19 years.
Figure 11-6 and
Figure 11-6 present a net present value calculation as associated sensitivity analysis for return on investment scenarios
of 5% and 7%, reflecting UVic’s cost of borrowing and long term asset return expectations.
Only when biomass fuel costs increase at 8% every year from $6/GJ does the payback extend beyond 25 years. This is
unlikely, but still a risk to be considered if other large heating plants convert to biomass fuel and a supply and demand
impact is felt.
Page 11-13
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.5.4 Procurement and Funding Options
There are three main methods through which to procure a biomass heating plant, summarized below, from direct
ownership to turn-key operation. All three are valid for implementation at UVic.
Biomass Boiler (Heating Only) + Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers
Description
Quantity
Unit Cost/unit
Total Cost
$
$
Notes
Source
Biomass Boiler - Heating Only
4200
kW
2000
8,400,000
Average estimated
cost
Biomass
Boiler
Suppliers
2. Utilities (Build-Own-Operate-Maintain) – A 3rd party utility finances, owns, operates and sells energy to
multiple/single end users. Regulated utilities work energy costs into a rate base for the customer(s), increasingly
common for fiscally constrained universities, hospital, military bases.
Gas Fired Condensing Boilers
16000
kW
40
640,000
Extra over cost for
condensing in
place of standard
Boiler supplier
Solar Thermal
13000
kW
800
10,400,000
3. ESCO (Energy Services Companies) – ESCO installs energy equipment, guarantees savings/ energy
displacement for end user. 3rd party debt finances the project. End users own the asset at the end of the ESCO
term.
New Energy hub building
1000
m2
2500
2,500,000
Plantroom pipework, pumps,
etc.
300
m
150
45,000
Heating distribution pipework
100
m
400
40,000
Trenching
100
m
150
15,000
1. Direct Sale – End user customer buys direct and self-finances the project based on internal capital hurdle rates.
Typical for industrial customers, select federal agencies, municipalities and universities. Typically has the longest
procurement timelines.
Options 2 and 3 eliminate the need for UVic to provide the required capital funding and the Utility or ESCO will the risks
relating to biomass fuel provision and cost.
The end user customer typically buys direct and self-finances the procurement and installation of a solar thermal system
from local suppliers. In the University’s situation, an ideal approach would be to procure the capital funding to design and
install the entire system as one project, requiring at least $11 Million. Another option would be to break this project down
into phases, not more than five, to meet smaller portions of financing. This would cost more than a single large project
approach.
Building heat exchangers
2
#
20000
40,000
Solar Thermal Connection
Points
20
#
5000
100,000
RS Means
All Mechanical
rooms, inc. new
energy hub
RS Means
RS Means
RS Means
Connect new
energy centre to
loop
Connects solar
thermal arrays to
loop
Supplementary DHW heaters
Total
22,180,000
Table 11-9 Solar Thermal + Biomass Boiler + Condensing Boiler Cost Breakdown
11.5.5 Summary
The combination of biomass boiler and solar thermal panels offers the potential to maximize energy and carbon savings
at UVic.
The high capital cost and comparably low energy savings of the solar thermal system increases the payback period
compared with solely installing a biomass boiler.
An assessment of feasibility to integrate a combined solar thermal and biomass boiler plant at UVic using the cost/benefit
criteria is summarized in Table 11-7, below.
Page 11-14
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Criteria
Assessment
Commercial Availability
Carbon Reduction Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early Implementation Potential
Funding Availability
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
Table 11-10 Biomass Boiler + Solar Thermal + Condensing Boiler Cost/Benefit Summary
Page 11-15
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Solar Thermal
Month
Central Heating
Loop Demand
Solar Thermal
output
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
kWh
5,547,019
4,988,890
5,551,794
5,451,569
3,496,403
1,762,564
1,191,035
1,719,339
3,845,506
4,074,933
5,563,145
7,539,135
50,731,331
kWh
293,552
472,016
754,765
1,018,946
1,134,746
1,225,631
1,308,948
1,249,240
1,059,501
679,686
353,985
245,832
9,796,849
Biomass - Primary Boiler
Carbon
Carbon
savings from
Carbon Credit Displaced
Biomass savings from
Solar
'Refund'
energy cost boiler output Biomass
Thermal
Boiler
Boiler
tonnes
54
86
138
186
208
224
240
229
194
124
65
45
1,793
$
1,343
2,159
3,453
4,662
5,191
5,607
5,988
5,715
4,847
3,110
1,619
1,125
44,821
$
14,678
23,601
37,738
50,947
56,737
61,282
65,447
62,462
52,975
33,984
17,699
12,292
489,842
kWh
3,124,800
2,822,400
3,124,800
3,024,000
2,361,657
536,933
0
470,098
2,786,005
3,124,800
3,024,000
3,124,800
27,524,294
tonnes
572
516
572
553
432
98
0
86
510
572
553
572
5,037
Carbon
'Credit'
Refund
$
$14,296
$12,912
$14,296
$13,835
$10,805
$2,456
$0
$2,151
$12,746
$14,296
$13,835
$14,296
$125,924
Gas Fired Condesing Boilers - Supplementary Boiler
Condensing
Energy
Boiler
Gas-Fired
Savings
Carbon
Supplemntar
Displaced
Energy cost
Efficiency
Condensing
achieved savings from
Biomass cost
y Heating
energy cost
saving
compared with
Boiler
using
Biomass
Load
a Standard
Output
Condensing
Boiler
Boiler
Boilers
$
$156,240
$141,120
$156,240
$151,200
$118,083
$26,847
$0
$23,505
$139,300
$156,240
$151,200
$156,240
$1,376,215
$
$93,744
$84,672
$93,744
$90,720
$70,850
$16,108
$0
$14,103
$83,580
$93,744
$90,720
$93,744
$825,729
$
$62,496
$56,448
$62,496
$60,480
$47,233
$10,739
$0
$9,402
$55,720
$62,496
$60,480
$62,496
$550,486
kWh
2,128,668
1,694,474
1,672,229
1,408,622
0
0
0
0
0
270,446
2,185,159
4,168,504
13,528,102
Table 11-11 Biomass Boiler + Solar Thermal + Condensing Boiler - Energy, Carbon and Energy Cost Savings
kWh
2,128,668
1,694,474
1,672,229
1,338,191
0
0
0
0
0
256,924
2,185,159
4,168,504
13,444,149
1
1
1
0.95
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.95
1
1
kWh
0
0
0
70431
0
0
0
0
0
13522
0
0
83,953
tonnes
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
15
Total
Carbon
'Credit'
Refund
Displaced Total Energy Total Carbon
energy cost
Savings
Savings
$
$0
$0
$0
$322
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$62
$0
$0
$384
$
$0
$0
$0
$3,522
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$676
$0
$0
$4,198
kWh
3,418,352
3,294,416
3,879,565
4,113,377
3,496,403
1,762,564
1,308,948
1,719,339
3,845,506
3,818,009
3,377,985
3,370,632
37,405,096
tonnes
626
603
710
753
640
323
240
315
704
699
618
617
6,845
Total Carbon
Total Energy
Credit
Cost Savings
Refund
$
$15,639
$15,072
$17,749
$18,819
$15,996
$8,064
$5,988
$7,866
$17,593
$17,467
$15,454
$15,421
$171,128
$
$77,174
$80,049
$100,234
$114,949
$103,970
$72,020
$65,447
$71,864
$108,695
$97,156
$78,179
$74,788
$1,044,526
10000000
20000000
5000000
15000000
0
10000000
1
5000000
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
$
-5000000
0
$
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
-10000000
-5000000
-15000000
-10000000
-15000000
-20000000
-20000000
-25000000
Undiscounted payback
'4% Biomass Price Increase per year
'8% Biomass Price Increase per year
-25000000
Year
'0% Biomass Price Increase per year
'6% Biomass Price Increase per year
Figure 11-10 Biomass + Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers Payback, 5% ROI
Undiscounted payback
'4% Biomass Price Increase per year
'8% Biomass Price Increase per year
Year
'0% Biomass Price Increase per year
'6% Biomass Price Increase per year
Figure 11-11 Biomass + Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers Payback, 7% ROI
Page 11-16
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.6 Biomass (CoGen) + Condensing Boilers
CoGen facilities require a permit, which is negotiated on an individual basis with the relevant regional department of the
MoE. MoE staff usually applies the appropriate standard.
11.6.1 System Size
The biomass CoGen plant option has been sized based on the thermal load at UVic as the primary sizing constraint, in
order to make use of the thermal heat demand from generating a supplemental amount of electricity to avoid the need to
reject waste heat. Since the thermal efficiency of the biomass CoGen plant is reduced, compared to a straight heating
plant configuration due to the generation of electricity, the boiler capacity will be greater than a straight biomass heating
only boiler; however, the thermal output from a CoGen plant configuration shall remain 4200kW, as defined in section
13.4
A monthly profile of the thermal and electrical energy generation from a biomass CoGen plant of this size is presented in
Figure 11-12.
11.6.2 Capital Costs
The capital cost of a biomass boiler system is highly dependant on the system’s configuration, scope split, project
delivery model. Based on discussions with a number of biomass boiler providers, the capital expenditure required is
currently in the range of $1650/kW to $2500/kW.
For the gas-fired condensing boilers, it has been assumed that the cost of replacing the existing boiler plants at ELW and
McKinnon with standard gas-fired boilers can be deducted from this capital cost since the boilers will require replacement
within the next 10 years regardless. The additional cost for the provision of gas-fired condensing boilers over standard
boilers has been assumed at $40/kW.
5000000
6000000
4000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
3000000
2000000
2000000
Electrical demand (kWh)
The gas-fired condensing boilers have been sized to meet UVic’s peak thermal load of 16MW in order to supplement the
thermal output from the biomass CoGen plant during peak winter times, and act as back-up should the biomass CoGen
plant fail.
7000000
Thermal Demand (kWh)
The electrical output depends on the type of biomass boiler that is used and the electrical output ration can vary from 2:1
to 4:1.interms of heat available vs. electricity generated. For this analysis the worst case has been assumed and the
electrical output assumed to 1MWe
6000000
8000000
1000000
1000000
0
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
UVic's Thermal demand
UVic's Electrical demand
May
June
July
Month
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
4200kW(Thermal) Biomass CHP output
CHP Electrical generation
Figure 11-12 Monthly Profile of Biomass CoGen output and Supplementary Heating Requirement
A breakdown of the combined capital cost of all three elements is presented in Table 11-1.
11.6.3 Biomass Fuel
The fuel cost assumptions in Section 13.3 remain valid for this option.
Due to the lower thermal efficiency of the biomass CoGen boiler, additional fuel is required to maintain the thermal output
at 4200 kW. Approximately 6-7 deliveries of biomass will be required, per day, during peak winter periods. On-site fuel
storage should remain at 48 hours worth as a minimum requirement.
The next step is to complete a detailed fuel study, prior to beginning the design phase of the biomass system.
The risks relating to fuel source, delivery and cost can be mitigated by procuring a turnkey operation form a Utility or
ESCo.
11.6.4 Biomass Emissions
11.6.5 Energy and Carbon Savings
As discussed in Section 13.3, there are currently no set Provincial emission thresholds for biomass-fuelled energy plants
in BC, apart from boilers used for agricultural applications, such as Greenhouses.
The estimated energy savings are as follows:
• Thermal Energy: 32.5M kWh per year; a 50% reduction in UVic’s thermal energy cost demand.
• Electrical Energy: 7.6M kWh; a 14% reduction in UVic’s purchased electrical energy demand
The Ministry of Environment (MoE) also regulates the emissions from biomass fueled electrical power generation using a
separate standard to that for heating only agricultural biomass boilers, see below. As discussed earlier, any biomass
The estimated carbon savings is nearly 6160 tonnes per year; a 36% reduction in UVic’s carbon emissions.
Page 11-17
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
A detailed breakdown of the estimated energy and carbon savings for the proposed system is set out in Table 11-3
It has been assumed that electricity is sold back to the Utility, rather than used directly on site, at a rate equal UVic’s
purchase price. It may be possible to negotiate with BC Hydro to increase the tariff for energy sold due to the carbon
neutral quality of the electricity. Selling the electricity directly to the local utility eliminates the high capital cost of providing
a private utility and wire network and utility storage on campus.
Biomass Boiler (CoGen) + Condensing Boilers
Description
Quantity
Unit
Cost/unit
Total Cost
$
$
Gas-fired condensing boilers are no more onerous than UVic’s existing boiler installation.
4200
kW
4250
17,850,000
Average estimated
cost, ± 20%
Biomass
Boiler
Suppliers
Gas Fired Condensing Boilers
16000
kW
40
640,000
Extra over cost for
condensing in
place of standard
Boiler supplier
New Energy hub building
1300
m2
2500
3,250,000
Mechanical Room pipework,
pumps, etc.
100
m
150
15,000
Heating distribution pipework
100
m
400
40,000
Trenching
100
m
150
15,000
2
#
20000
40,000
11.6.7 Energy Cost savings and Payback
Table 11-11 summarizes the cost savings for the system in year one.
Based on the above assumptions, the estimated simple payback has been calculated to be 26 years.
Figure 11-6 and
Figure 11-6 present a net present value calculation as associated sensitivity analysis for return on investment scenarios
of 5% and 7%, reflecting UVic’s cost of borrowing and long term asset return expectations.
The increased biomass requirement makes the financial feasibility of biomass CoGen more sensitive to the biomass price
increases. If biomass prices did not increase, and gas and electricity prices continued to increase at 5% per year, the
payback can be reduced to 14 years based on an ROI of 5%.
11.6.8 Procurement and Funding Options
There are three main methods through which to procure a biomass heating plant, summarized below, from direct
ownership to turn-key operation. All three are valid for implementation at UVic.
Source
Biomass Boiler - CoGen
11.6.6 Maintenance
The biomass CoGen boiler will be shut down during the month of July when the solar thermal output is sufficient to meet
the heating demand providing a good opportunity to carry out maintenance. A dedicated team of 1-2 staff members will
still be required to maintain and operate a plant of this size. For turnkey operations, the maintenance staffing is typically
the responsibility of the provider.
Notes
Building heat exchangers
RS Means
All Mechanical
rooms, inc. new
energy hub
RS Means
RS Means
Connect new
energy centre to
loop
0
Electrical Connection to grid
Total
1
#
25000
25,000
21,875,000
± 20%
Table 11-12 Solar Thermal + Biomass Boiler + Condensing Boiler Cost Breakdown
1. Direct Sale – End user customer buys direct and self-finances the project based on internal capital hurdle rates.
Typical for industrial customers, select federal agencies, municipalities and universities. Typically has the longest
procurement timelines.
11.6.9 Summary
2. Utilities (Build-Own-Operate-Maintain) – A 3rd party utility finances, owns, operates and sells energy to
multiple/single end users. Regulated utilities work energy costs into a rate base for the customer(s), increasingly
common for fiscally constrained universities, hospital, military bases.
The simple payback period is longer than for a heating only biomass boiler due to the additional capital cost, and
increased biomass fuel cost. A biomass CoGen plant could replace the heating only biomass boiler in Section 11.5 and
be combined with solar thermal to maximize savings, but a the fuel study will be required to confirm the potential fuel cost
so payback can be confirmed.
3. ESCO (Energy Services Companies) – ESCO installs energy equipment, guarantees savings/ energy
displacement for end user. 3rd party debt finances the project. End users own the asset at the end of the ESCO
term.
An assessment of feasibility to integrate a combined solar thermal and biomass boiler plant at UVic using the cost/benefit
criteria is summarized in Table 11-7, below.
The combination of biomass boiler CoGen plant with gas fired boilers offers the potential to achieve significant energy
and carbon savings at UVic.
The ability to sell electricity improves the financial feasibility of a biomass CoGen plant and will likely generate additional
interest from Utility providers and ESCo to provide UVic with a turnkey operation.
Options 2 and 3 eliminate the need for UVic to provide the required capital funding and the Utility or ESCO will the risks
relating to biomass fuel provision and cost
.
Page 11-18
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Criteria
Assessment
Commercial Availability
Carbon Reduction Potential
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early Implementation Potential
Funding Availability
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
Table 11-13 Biomass Boiler + Solar Thermal + Condensing Boiler Cost/Benefit Summary
Page 11-19
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Biomass CoGen - Primary Boiler
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Central Heating Loop
Demand
Biomass boiler
output
Displaced
Electricity
Carbon savings from
Biomass Boiler
Carbon 'Credit'
Refund
Displaced energy
cost
Biomass cost
Energy cost saving
kWh
5,547,019
4,988,890
5,551,794
5,451,569
3,496,403
1,762,564
1,191,035
1,719,339
3,845,506
4,074,933
5,563,145
7,539,135
50,731,331
kWh
3,124,800
2,822,400
3,124,800
3,024,000
3,124,800
1,757,615
1,187,690
1,714,511
3,024,000
3,124,800
3,024,000
3,124,800
32,178,216
kWh
744,000
672,000
744,000
720,000
744,000
418,480
282,783
408,217
720,000
744,000
720,000
744,000
7,661,480
tonnes
593
535
593
574
593
333
225
325
574
593
574
593
6,103
$
$14,817
$13,383
$14,817
$14,339
$14,817
$8,334
$5,632
$8,130
$14,339
$14,817
$14,339
$14,817
$152,578
$
$197,904
$178,752
$197,904
$191,520
$197,904
$111,316
$75,220
$108,586
$191,520
$197,904
$191,520
$197,904
$2,037,954
$
$131,242
$118,541
$131,242
$127,008
$131,242
$73,820
$49,883
$72,009
$127,008
$131,242
$127,008
$131,242
$1,351,485
$
$66,662
$60,211
$66,662
$64,512
$66,662
$37,496
$25,337
$36,576
$64,512
$66,662
$64,512
$66,662
$686,469
Gas Fired Condesing Boilers - Supplementary Boiler
Condensing Boiler
Energy Savings
Gas-Fired
Carbon savings
Supplemntary Efficiency compared
achieved using
Condensing
from Biomass
Heating Load
with a Standard
Condensing
Boiler Output
Boiler
Boiler
Boilers
(less than 1 = more
efficient)
kWh
kWh
kWh
tonnes
2,406,643
1
2,406,643
0
0
2,152,481
1
2,152,481
0
0
2,411,405
1
2,411,405
0
0
2,412,261
0.95
2,291,648
120613
22
361,785
0.88
318,371
43414
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810,708
0.88
713,423
97285
18
938,690
0.95
891,756
46935
9
2,523,523
1
2,523,523
0
0
4,393,166
1
4,393,166
0
0
18,410,663
18,102,416
308,247
56
Total
Carbon 'Credit' Displaced
Total Thermal Total Electrical
Refund
energy cost Energy Savings Energy Savings
$
$0
$0
$0
$552
$199
$0
$0
$0
$445
$215
$0
$0
$1,410
$
$0
$0
$0
$6,031
$2,171
$0
$0
$0
$4,864
$2,347
$0
$0
$15,412
kWh
3,124,800
2,822,400
3,124,800
3,144,613
3,168,214
1,757,615
1,187,690
1,714,511
3,121,285
3,171,735
3,024,000
3,124,800
32,486,463
kWh
744,000
672,000
744,000
720,000
744,000
418,480
282,783
408,217
720,000
744,000
720,000
744,000
7,661,480
Total
Total Carbon Total Carbon
Energy Cost
Savings
Credit Refund
Savings
tonnes
593
535
593
596
601
333
225
325
591
601
574
593
6,160
Table 11-14 Biomass CoGen Boiler + Condensing Boiler - Energy, Carbon and Energy Cost Savings
5000000
50000000
0
$
40000000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
-5000000
20000000
-10000000
$
30000000
10000000
-15000000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
-10000000
-20000000
-30000000
-20000000
-25000000
Year
'Undiscounted Payback
4% Biomass Price Increase per year
8% Biomass Price Increase per year
0% Biomass Price Increase per year
6% Biomass Price Increase per year
Year
'Undiscounted Payback
0% Biomass Price Increase per year
4% Biomass Price Increase per year
6% Biomass Price Increase per year
8% Biomass Price Increase per year
Figure 11-14 Biomass CoGen + Condensing Boilers Payback, 7% ROI
Figure 11-13 Biomass CoGen + Condensing Boilers Payback, 5% ROI
Page 11-20
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
$
$14,817
$13,383
$14,817
$14,891
$15,015
$8,334
$5,632
$8,130
$14,784
$15,031
$14,339
$14,817
$153,989
$
$81,479
$73,594
$81,479
$85,433
$83,848
$45,830
$30,969
$44,706
$84,160
$84,041
$78,851
$81,479
$855,870
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.7 Ambient Heating Loop with Water to Water Heat Pumps
The existing air cooled chillers will need to be replaced to allow the waste heat to be captured. A breakdown of the
combined capital cost of all three elements is presented in Table 11-117.
An ambient temperature loop should be considered at UVic to serve campus building developments that are outside of
the “connection boundary” to the high temperature DES loop. The feasibility of implementing the loop will be improved
further if the available waste heat from the data centre on campus, EDC2.
It has been assumed that the cost to provide the required low temperature hydronic heating system, over and above that
for electric baseboard, will be incorporated into the construction budget of each building.
11.7.1 System Size
The initial size of system shall be based on the available heat from EDC2 and a loop length that stretches from EDC2 to
the nearby residential developments. The loop can be expanded as, and when required and additional low grade heat
sources connected, e.g. geoexchange heat pumps.
The amount of heat available fro EDC2 is dependent on two main factors; the electrical consumption (and therefore heat
output) of the installed servers and the Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of the building.
Ambient
Ambient 'District' Heating Loop - To serve New Construction
Description
Quantity
Unit Cost/unit
Water Cooled Heat Pumps
250
Plantroom pipework, pumps,
etc.
100
The existing air-cooled chillers will be replaced with water to water heat pumps to capture the waste heat in a useful form
and increase the “grade” (temperature) of the waste heat. It has been assumed the system will operate 24hrs/day.
Heat pump
From discussions with the IT department at UVic, the following assumptions have been made regarding the future
installed capacity and expected PUE.
Energy hub building
200
Heating distribution pipework
Trenching
Building heat exchangers
ASSUMPTIONS
Units
Installed Server Capacity
Power Usage Effectiveness
Cooling percentage of non-server building load
W-W Chiller efficiency
Notes
700 kW
1.5
75%
95%
Geoexchange heat pump
Total Cost
$
$
kW
350
87,500
m
150
15,000
2
50000
100,000
m2
2500
500,000
2000
m
400
800,000
2000
m
150
300,000
15
#
20000
300,000
#
50000
0
Notes
Source
Increases exergy of
waste heat
Estimated number
of new buildings
Geo-exchange field
0
Potential Waste heat
249 kW
Heat Pump COP
2.5
Low grade heat availability to DES
Run hours
Total heat available per year
623 kW
8,760 hrs
5,461,313 kWh
Total
2,102,500
Table 11-16 Ambient Heating Loop Cost Breakdown
(assumed continuous)
(displaced gas )
Table 11-15 Ambient Heating Loop Cost Breakdown
The ambient loop can be expanded as new buildings are brought on line and alternative energy sources such as
geoexchange heat pumps can be added, as and when required. The space heating system will need to be a low
temperature hydronic based system, such as radiant slabs, panel radiators or other similar low temperature heating
terminals to utilize the low temperature waste heat efficiently.
11.7.2 Capital Costs
Page 11-21
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
An assessment of feasibility to integrate an ambient heating loop plant at UVic using the cost/benefit criteria is
summarized in Table 11-18, below.
11.7.3 Energy and Carbon Savings
The estimated amount of thermal energy that can be displaced is 5.4M kWh per year; equivalent to space heating
2
demand of 40,000m of student residences.
Criteria
Installing an ambient loop to recover and utilize waste heat from EDC2 can potentially offset nearly 1000 tonnes per year
of baseline carbon emissions.
Commercial Availability
A detailed breakdown of the estimated energy and carbon savings for the proposed system is set out in Table 11-3
Carbon Reduction Potential
ASSUMPTIONS
Total heat available per year
Assumed Gas cost
Displaced gas cost
Units
5,461,313 kWh
0.05 $/kWh
$273,066
Notes
(displaced gas )
Payback Period
Retrofit Applicability
Early Implementation Potential
Funding Availability
Carbon saving
Carbon credit 'Refund'
Total energy cost savings
999 tonnes
$24,986
Maintenance, Operation and Staffing Cost
$298,051
Table 11-18 Ambient Loop Cost/Benefit Summary
Capital cost
Simple Payback
$2,102,281 $
7 years
Table 11-17 Energy And Carbon offset estimate for Ambient Heating Loop
11.7.4 Maintenance
The ambient loop will be no more onerous than UVic’s existing heating loop. The new water-to-water heat pumps will be
replacing existing chiller unit, and have a similar maintenance regime, therefore no additional maintenance is required;
the maintenance regime of water to water heat pump will be no more onerous than a typical gas-fired boiler.
11.7.5 Energy Cost savings and Payback
Table 11-11 summarizes the cost savings for the system in year one and is based on assumptions defined above.
The estimated simple payback has been calculated to be 6-8 years.
11.7.6 Procurement Options
The end user customer typically buys direct and self-finances the procurement and installation of an ambient heating
loop.
11.7.7 Summary
The integration of a new ambient temperature loop utilizing waste heat already available on campus to serve new
buildings will help reduce the energy impact of population and campus building growth at UVic’s Gordon Head Campus.
The ambient loop system is recommended for new campus growth that is beyond the current high temperature heating
district energy system.
Page 11-22
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
11.8 Options Matrix
<---------Reduces Existing Energy Consumption Offsets Campus Growth carbon emissions ----->
Option 1
Criteria
Solar Thermal
Units
Option 1A
Solar Thermal + Condensing
Boilers
Evacuated Tube Solar panels
Evacuated Tube Solar panels
located on roofs of buildings around located on roofs of buildings around
campus
campus
Option 2
Option 2A
Option 3
Option 4
Biomass (Heating Only) +
Condensing Boilers
Biomass (Heating Only) + Solar
Thermal Panels + Condensing
Boilers
Biomass CHP + Condensing
Boilers
Ambient heating Loop
New Biomass boiler connected to
exisitng heating loop
Evacuated Tube Solar panels
located on roofs of buildings around
campus, connected to existing
heating loop
Biomass gassification sytem +
turbine or ORC
New Biomass boiler connected to
exisitng heating loop
Non- Condensing boilers used as
supplementary heating energy
source
Exisiting heating loop used to move Exisiting heating loop used to move Exisiting heating loop used to move
thermal energy around campus.
thermal energy around campus.
thermal energy around campus.
Panels connect directly into return of Panels connect directly into return of Panels connect directly into return of
district heating loop.
district heating loop.
district heating loop.
Features
System Description
Local DHW heaters (Electric) used
to meet specific needs, e.g. high
temperature water in Petch
Gas-fired condensing boilers used
as supplementary during peak
heating requirements
Gas-fired boilers used as
supplementary. Either existing
Volcano boiler plant or phased
requirement with condensing boilers
A single, large-volume, non-insulated pipe loop maintained at a moderate
temperature level, can be connected to a number of different low-grade
energy sources anywhere on the loop
simpler, more flexible, more reliable and more robust than the conventional
dual-temperature level DES
A large development can be covered by an unlimited number of small,
manageable, independent loops tied to the closest low-grade energy
source and simply “daisy-chained” together via heat exchangers
Biomass boiler shut down during
June, July and August
Connects to EDC2
To serve potential future developments on east side of campus
Assumptions
Waste Heat from EDC2
Energy Sources
Solar
Solar + Natural Gas
Biomass + Natural Gas
Biomass + Solar+ Natural Gas
Biomass + Natural Gas
Displaced Energy Sources
Energy Distribution
Displaced Energy cost
inflation
Natural Gas
Exisitng District Heating Loop
Natural Gas
Exisitng District Heating Loop
Natural Gas
Existing District Heating Loop
Natural Gas
Existing District Heating Loop
Natural Gas + Grid Electricity
Existing District Heating Loop
5% per year
5% per year
5% per year
5% per year
5% per year
5% per year
2% per year
2% per year
2% per year
2% per year
2% per year
2% per year
700 kWh/m2.yr (of panel area)
700 kWh/m2.yr (of panel area)
3000kW/Tonne of Biomass
700 kWh/m2.yr (of panel area)
3000kW/Tonne of Biomass
3000kW/Tonne of Biomass
-
4200kW biomass boiler
3250kW biomass boiler
Solar Thermal Panel Area = 13,500
m2
4200kW (Thermal) biomass boiler
Waste heat output from EDC2 = 650kW
Carbon Credit Inflation
System output
Energy
Panel Area = 13,500 m2
System size
(As noted)
Panel Area = 13,500 m2
16000 kW of Condensing Boiler
In future, geoexchange heatpumps or sewer heat recovery
Natural Gas
New Ambient, single temperature district heating loop
kWh
9,100,000
10,800,000
32,500,000
37,400,000
Thermal = 32,000,000
Electricity = 7,600,000
5,461,313
%
14%
16%
50%
58%
Thermal = 50%
Electricity = 14%
N/A
Tonnes
CO2/kWh
0.183
0.183
0.183
0.183
Gas = 0.183
Electricity = 0.028
0.183
Tonnes
1,655
2,000
6,000
6,845
6,160
999
% of total
14%
11%
38%
43%
39%
N/A*
Capital Cost
$
$9M - $12M
$10.8M - $13.2M
$10.5M - $12.8M
$19.5M - $24.5M
$20M - $24M
Unit cost
$/unit
$750/m2
$750/m2 of solar thermal panel
$40/kW of condensing boiler
$1650/kW(thermal)
$3750/kW(thermal) of biomass CHP
Energy cost savings
$/year
$500,000
$540,000
$820,000
$1650/kW(thermal) of biomass
boiler
$750/m2 of solar thermal panel
$1,000,000
Carbon Credit savings
$/year
$40,000
$50,000
$150,000
$170,000
$150,000
Simple Payback
Years
20-24
18-22
12 -15
17 - 22
19-25
Energy savings
Cost
Carbon
Carbon intensity of
displaced energy
source
Carbon savings
$700,000
7-12
Page 11-23
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
<---------Reduces Existing Energy Consumption
Option 1
Option 1A
Option 2
Option 2A
Option 3
Option 4
Solar Thermal
Solar Thermal + Condensing Boilers
Biomass (Heating Only)
Biomass (Heating Only) + Solar
Thermal Panels
Biomass CHP
Ambient heating Loop
Criteria
Integration
Maintenance and Operation
Units
Twice yearly shut down for
Twice yearly shut down for maintenance maintenance. Can be carried out during
Same as Option 2
summer month shutdown
1-2 dedicated staff memebers likely
No additional staff requirement
No additional staff requirement
to be required to maintain and
Same as Option 2
Same as Option 2
operate a plant of this size
Very reliable system, any issues are Very reliable system, any issues are
Known technology, commercially Established technology with proven Cutting edge technology, reliability
well known
well known
available, reliable
reliability records
currently not guaranteed
Control is simple, and easy to
Control is simple, and easy to
optimize
optimize
No additional maintenance above
baseline, yearly panel cleaning
Maintenance Cost
Staff Requirement
Reliability
Building/System
Control
Fuel Deliveries
#/day during
peak winter
conditions
N/A
Same as option 1
N/A
Maintenance burden no greater than exsiting heating loop
Same as Option 1
4-5
3-4
6-7
N/A
N/A
Existing Building
Impacts
Local electric DHW tank, to be
located in each existing Mechanical
room
Same as Option 1
None
Same as Option 1
None
Roof/Wall/Slab
penetrations/
integration
Shafts and planning for piping needs Same as option 1
None
Same as option 1
None
This technology is commonly used
and it is well understood by the
designers and contractors
Design and
Construction
Exisitng boiler room in Clearihue will
need to be reconfigured
Delivery Vehicle
Options
Implementation
Offsets Campus Growth carbon emissions ----->
Timescales/phasing
New energy hub will be required,
approximately 1000m2. Includes 48
Same as Option 2
Same as Option 2
hours of storage. Parking #1
provides ideal location
1. Direct Sale – End user customer buys direct and self-finances the project based on internal capital hurdle
rates. Typical for industrial customers, select federal agencies, municipalities and universities. Typically the
longest procurement timelines.
2. Utilities (Build-Own-Operate-Maintain) – A 3rd party utility finances, owns, operates and sells energy to
multiple/single end users. Regulated utilities work energy costs into a rate base for the customer(s) Increasingly
common for fiscally constrained
universities, hospital, military bases.
3. ESCO (Energy Services Companies) – ESCO installs energy equipment, guarantees savings/ energy
displacement for end user. 3rd party debt finances the project. End users owns the asset. Typical for all US
public sector verticals.
Typically built in a single phase.
Can be installed in phases, as part of Can be installed in phases, as part of Typically built in a single phase.
building or infrasturcutre upgrades
building or infrasturcutre upgrades
Can be installed in smaller phases
but costs will increase
Typically built in a single phase.
Energy hub building required, locate near EDC2
Modular, single-temperature, low-temperature DES with distributed heat
pumps will enable phased development.
Loop can be expanded inline with phasing of buildings
Funding
A detailed study into the local
biomass fuel availability should be
carried out
Notes
Further Study
Requirements
Assumes exisitng boiler plant will be
replaced; capital cost reflects only the
additional cost for condeining boilers,
over and above traditional boilers
A detailed study into the local
biomass fuel availability should be
carried out
A detailed study into the local
biomass fuel availability should be
carried out
Sizing of CHP was thermally led
Capital costs do not include savings by
avoiding BC Hydro upgrade
Define future growth potential and timescale
Proposed for future developments
Capital cost assumes a single pipe, ambient loop length of 2000m and individual
building heat exchangers
* Offsets future growth. No present savings from current baseline
Page 11-24
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
12 CONCLUSIONS
The currently on-going Continual Optimization Program has identified significant energy savings, achievable with
relatively short paybacks.
12.1 Energy Targets
UVic’s priority should be to complete all three phases of the Continual Optimization Program over the next one to two
years.
The University of Victoria has established stringent overall energy use reduction targets and carbon emission reduction
policy as part of their Sustainability Action Plan, and has the ambition to be ahead of its peers in terms of energy efficient
building design. This integrated energy master plan has been developed to act as a road map and support UVic in
meeting these targets.
A key element of this program is the installation of end use energy meters to all buildings connected to the district heating
loop. Completing this work will allow UVic to easily identify buildings operating inefficiently, and accurately identify the
domestic hot water load separately from the space heating load, so that summertime base load can be accurately
tracked. This will allow any solar heating panel option to be optimized.
The proposed energy use of new buildings at UVic are expected to meet the minimum energy performance criteria
defined in the BC Building Code, ASHRAE 90.1 2004. Project specific goals are sometimes set, e.g. LEED Gold, but this
is not applicable to all projects. New Buildings will need to achieve greater energy reductions than required by current and
projected Energy Codes, in all new and existing buildings to meet the energy and carbon reduction targets.
12.2 UVic’s Current Energy Use
UVic’s current energy use is better than many of its peers in BC, approximately 17% lower than the NRCAN BC
Universities energy intensity benchmark. However Victoria has one of the mildest climates in BC and so energy use is
expected to be lower than many of its peers in areas outside the lower mainland of BC
Individual Buildings at UVic typically perform between standard and good practice when compared with national and
international benchmarks. The demand for academic and student accommodation is expected to grow at UVic over the
coming years and all new buildings will need to perform with much greater energy efficiency than the current building
stock for UVic to achieve its energy and carbon reduction targets.
12.3 New Buildings
For new buildings to consistently achieve Good or Best Practice energy benchmarks, energy efficiency needs to be
placed as a key driver of a building’s design. Developing a building design guideline document will allow UVic to define
mandatory performance and prescriptive requirements for the design, construction and renovation of University owned
buildings, helping to support and direct designers in helping UVic achieve their energy targets.
UVic should also consider incorporating many of the construction design approaches presented in Section 8 into the
design guideline document to maximize energy efficiency.
12.4 Existing Heating Loop
The vast majority of UVic’s natural gas use is by the main boiler plant in ELW serving the campus heating loop. The loop
operates at high temperatures, hindering the integration of low-grade energy sources and high efficient technologies.
Lowering the loop temperature will be prohibitively expensive due to the number of buildings connected to the loop, and
the changes required to the heating systems in each building.
Since the loop must remain in operation, the efficiency of the existing DES system should be improved to maximize
energy and carbon savings. Currently the high loop temperature is maintained throughout the year, regardless of the
climate and each building’s heating demand. The provision of a control feedback loop between each building connected
to the loop and the main boiler plant at ELW will allow the flow rate and water temperature to match system’s needs more
closely, thus saving energy and carbon.
12.6 Potential Low/Zero Carbon Energy Sources
Replacing the existing mid-efficiency gas fired boilers with low and zero carbon solutions will help UVic achieve its carbon
reduction target and increase its renewable energy portfolio.
The feasibility of various solutions were initially assessed and presented in Section 10. Combinations of the most feasible
solutions, gas-fired condensing boilers, solar thermal panels, biomass boilers and biomass CoGen were assessed in
greater detail, presented in Section 11.
2
From this detailed analysis, the maximum reduction in carbon emissions is achieved by combining a 13,000m solar
thermal array, a 4200kW biomass boiler, and replacing the existing gas fired boiler plant with modern condensing boilers.
The gas-fired boilers will be used to supplement the solar thermal and biomass boiler during the peak winter months and
act as back-up, should the solar thermal system or biomass boiler fail.
A biomass CoGen plant generating electricity as well as heat could be integrated instead of a biomass boiler, providing
further energy and carbon savings. However, biomass CoGen plants required significantly more biomass than standard
biomass boilers, making their financial feasibility more sensitive to the price of biomass fuel. Procuring a biomass fuel
study will confirm the availability of biomass fuel in the vicinity of UVic and the projected fuel price.
12.7 Key Recommendations
1. Produce a Buildings technical design document, outlining UVic’s mandatory performance and
prescriptive requirements for the design, construction and renovation of university owned buildings.
2. Complete the Continual Optimization Program Scope of Work to all buildings connected to the
Central Heating Loop
3. Upgrade the controls to the central heating loop and provide a feedback loop from each building to
the central boiler plant.
4. Once the building energy metering installation has been completed, meter the thermal energy use by
end use for one year to redefine the baseline and refine sizing of future energy sources.
5. Procure a biomass fuel study to confirm fuel availability, security and future energy cost
6. Replace the McKinnon and ELW boiler plants at the end of their respective lives with high efficiency
condensing boilers.
12.5 Existing Building Stock
The vast majority of the floor space that will exist in 2020 has already been built; therefore, reducing existing buildings’
energy use is a key element for UVic to meet its carbon and energy reduction targets.
7. Install the solar thermal array. The installation can be phased over a number of years; coinciding with
scheduled roof replacements will help reduce mobilization and construction costs.
Page 12-25
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
8. Procure the design and construction of a biomass boiler/ biomass CoGen plant. The outcome of the
biomass fuel study will influence the decision.
12.8 Implementation Schedule
The following schedule is an example of how the above recommendations could be implemented at UVic. It is based on
the initial goals of UVic to reduce Carbon at a rate similar to its peers.
UVic’s first priority should be to complete the Continual Optimization Program, including the individual building metering.
In parallel with this, the controls upgrade to the campus heating loop can occur to maximize the efficiency of the existing
loop as soon as possible.
The installation of the solar thermal array has been separated into arbitrary 20% portions based on panel area, with a
portion scheduled to be installed every two years. A portion of the solar array could just as easily be installed as and
when budgets allow or building renovation programs are scheduled to occur.
By upgrading the central heating loop controls and replacing the existing boilers in the McKinnon Boiler room with gasfired condensing boilers within the next four years, UVic will achieve their short term carbon emission target of a 20%
reduction over the University’s 2007 baseline, by 2015.
This implementation schedule example could be used to plan capital financing timing/milestones, or, if capital and
financial milestones are found to be different than the suggested timetable, the carbon reduction implementation schedule
can be revised to suit when capital/financing can be procured. Campus growth and campus Master Planning must also
be considered and coordinated with this Integrated Energy Master Plan.
Year
Measure
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Complete Continual Optimization Program
Meter Thermal energy use in each building for one year to create a revised
baseline
Upgrade Controls to Central Heating Loop and provide feedback loop from each
bulding to ELW
Replace McKinnon Boiler Plant with Gas-Fired Condensing Boilers
Replace ELW Boiler Plant with Gas-Fired Condensing Boilers
Install 20% of solar thermal array
Biomass CoGen Plant
Biomas
s Fuel
Study
Design and Procure System
Construct Energy Hub and
Install Equipment
Page 12-26
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
Year 16
Year 17
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
13 APPENDIX A
SAIT and NAIT, Alberta
13.1 Summary of Canadian University’s Sustainability and Energy Plans
Measures (DRAFT)
listed
October 2009
Update
Base-lining and series of capital
improvements, no specific targets listed
BRITISH COLUMBIA
COMPARABLES
INSTITUTION
SUSTAINABILITY
PLAN
ENERGY
PLAN
ENERGY TARGETS
Dalhousie University
Yes- Climate action
plan 2010
Yes, part of
Climate Action
Plan
Baseline 2009 GHG
Reduce GHG by 15% by 2013
Reduce GHG by 20% by 2016
BCIT Burnaby
Last Updated 2006
as part of Campus
Master Plan
Last Updated
2006
General incremental goals per year, and
upgrading existing Buildings. New
Buildings are to be built to LEED Gold.
Master Plans still being developed.
Emily Carr University of
Art and Design
2009 Carbon
Neutral Report
Carbon Neutral by 2010 and then follow
BC Provincial Carbon Reductions through
continual existing building systems
optimizations and carbon credits.
Kwantlen Polytechnic
University
Energy
Management
Action Plan
2010
Reducing electricity 5% by 2011 from 2006
levels
Reduce GHG by 50% by 2020
Queens University,
Ontario
Yes, November
2010
Plan only, no set targets
University of Toronto,
Ontario
Yes- October 2008
Plan only, no set targets
Reducing electricity by 14% by 2016 from
2006 levels
University of Guelph,
Ontario
Yes2009/2010
General small projects with general goal to
reduce overall energy use approx. 3% per
year
Reducing electricity by 20% by 2020 from
2006 levels
Wilfrid Laurier University,
Ontario
December
2009
75% GHG reduction per square foot
relative to other institutions by 2020
Carbon Reduction to follow Provincial
Goals
25% energy reduction by 2012 from 2009
baseline.
McGill University, Quebec
Red River College
Manitoba
University of Calgary,
Alberta
Yes, April 2011
2010 Sustainability
Plan
Yes- 20102015 Plan
dated May 4,
2010
70,000 tonnes GHG saving from 2003
level
January 2004
GHG Reduction
Plan
Plan only, no specific end goals, just yearly
reduction strategies.
Part of
Sustainability
Plan
Reduce overall Campus energy intensity
as follows:
Energy reduction of 11.4% from 2011 level
by 2015
2012 1.6 GJ/sq.M/year
2015 1.4 GJ/sq.M/yr
UNBC
University of the Fraser
Valley
January 2011
Initiatives and
Summary of results to date and a plan for
future actions, no specific reduction goals
Reduce Energy Intensity by 10% by 2015
from 2009/2010 Base case.
Continuous Building optimization program.
Vancouver Island
University
Vancouver
Island
University
Carbon Neutral
Action Plan
Report, March
2010
Carbon Neutral by 2010 and then follow
BC Provincial Carbon Reductions through
continual existing building systems
optimizations and carbon credits.
Capilano University
2009 Carbon
Neutral Action
Report
Meet Province of BC GHG reduction goals
as minimum, no specific targets over and
above those.
45% GHG reduction by 2015
University of Alberta,
Alberta
Strategic
Energy Master
Plan April 2011
Carbon reduction to follow Provincial
targets through energy reduction and
carbon credits.
Using 2008-2009 Baseline:
80% GHG reduction by 2050
No specific energy or carbon goals found.
Likely following Provincial carbon reduction
targets.
UNBC Currently installing pilot projects for
wood pellet heating and biomass boiler
plant
2020 1.3 GJ/sq.M/yr
60% GHG reduction by 2020
Green Strategy
March 2009
»» By 2012: 6% below 2007 levels
Page 13-27
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
2012.
»» By 2016: 18% below 2007 levels
»» By 2020: 33% below 2007 levels
Langara College
»» By 2050: 80% below 2007 levels
Thompson Rivers
University
Campus
Sustainability Action
Plan 2010-2012
Langara College
Strategic Plan
2010-2013
Meet Province of BC GHG reduction goals
as minimum, no specific targets over and
above those.
North Island College
»» By 2020: 33% below 2007 levels
Environmental Scan
May 2010
Yes- see UBC
Website
Climate Action
Plan 20102015
Become net positive energy producer by
2050
Okanagan College
33% GHG reduction from 2007 levels by
2015
SFU Burnaby
Royal Roads University
Camosun College
General
Sustainability Plan
Yes, 2009
Sustainability Plan
Energy
Management
Plan July 2010
Reduce energy consumption by 2% per
year
To be off grid
by 2018
Reduce GHG by 50% by 2020 from 2007
Baseline
Carbon Neutral
Action Report
2009
• To achieve a cost savings of 10% of 2005
levels ($98,750/yr) by the year 2012.
• To reduce electrical and natural gas
energy consumption intensity in both
campuses by 10% of 2005 levels by the
year 2012.
• To reduce greenhouse gas emission
intensity of 8.5% (200 tonnes/yr) from its
2005 levels by the year 2012.
Minimizing Campus energy use through
continuous optimization
Environmental Scan
November 2010
Minimizing Campus energy use through
continuous optimization
No specific targets/goals found, other than
following Provincial Carbon Reduction
targets.
66% GHG reduction from 2007 levels by
2020
All new buildings to achieve 42% below
1997 MNECB
Minimizing Campus energy use through
continuous optimization
No specific targets/goals found, other than
following Provincial Carbon Reduction
targets.
»» By 2050: 80% below 2007 levels
UBC
Continue to build new buildings to LEED
Gold Standards
No specific targets/goals found, other than
following Provincial Carbon Reduction
targets.
»» By 2012: 6% below 2007 levels
»» By 2016: 18% below 2007 levels
Energy
Management
Plan “Coming
Soon”
Vancouver Community
College
Minimizing Campus energy use to follow
BC Provincial Carbon Reductions through
continual existing building systems
optimizations and carbon credits.
Reduce GHG from 2007 levels by 33% by
2020 with 80% reduction by 2050
Camosun College will endeavor to reduce
electrical and natural gas energy
Consumption intensity (usage per square
foot) in both campuses by 10% of 2005
levels by the year 2012.
Camosun College targets greenhouse gas
emission intensity reductions of 8.5% (200
tonnes/yr) from its 2005 levels by the year
Page 13-28
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
14 APPENDIX B
Prism
Engineering - UVic Walk-Through Energy Audit Report, 2002
Prism
Engineering - UVic Walk-Through Energy Audit Report, 2002
Page 14-29
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
15 APPENDIX C
15.1.3 Human and Social Development
15.1.1 Petch
15.1.2 Elliott
Heating Water Consumption
(GJ)
600
500
400
300
2010
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electricity Consumption
(KWh)
100,000
80,000
60,000
2009
40,000
2010
20,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Page 15-30
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
15.1.4 Social Sciences and Mathematics
15.1.5 McPherson Library
Electrical
Consumption
kWh
70,000
60,000
50,000
Baseline
40,000
30,000
20,000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Heating Water
Consumption (GJ)
500
400
300
200
2010
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Page 15-31
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
16 APPENDIX D – NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ENERGY BENCHMARKS
Relevant National and International energy density benchmarks have been identified and defined below
16.1 United States
16.1.1 Laboratories for the 21st Century Energy Benchmark
A series of case studies published by the Laboratories for the 21st Century group, highlighted sustainable
features in engineering, and architecture and facilities management for a number of US based facilities. The
following tables in provide data for different laboratory types and a detailed breakdown of how the energy is used
st
for some case studies. Table 16-1: Laboratories for the 21 Century – Energy Benchmarks
*Energy data extracted from a series of case studies published on the Labs 21 website, www.labs21centry.gov highlighting sustainable
features in both engineering, architecture and facilities management.
**Energy data predicted by project consulting engineers, Hully and Kirkwood.
***Climate Zone based on Briggs, Lucas and Taylor 2002 “Climate Classification for Building Energy Codes Standards”.
http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/pdfs/climate_paper_review_draft_rev.pdf.
Total Annual Small
Power Energy
kWh/m2/yr
Total Annual
Lighting Energy
kWh/m2/yr
Total Annual Cooling
Plant Energy
kWh/m2/yr
Energy kWh/m2/yr
Total Annual
Ventilation
Energy kWh/m2/yr
Total Annual
Electrical
Total Annual
Thermal Energy
kWh/m2/yr
(M)/
Predicted (P)
Measured
Total Gross Floor
Area m2
Type
Climate Zone***
Location
Facility Name
****24 hour operation is assumed for labs where energy data is predicted.
Donald Bren Hall
California
Warm, Marine
Research
7,866
M
148
188
31
21
93
47
Cardiovascular & Biomedical
Research Center
Glasgow
Cool, Dry/Marine
Research
12,000
P**
360
455
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center
Washington
Mixed, Humid
Research
49,480
M
590
524
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Marian E Koshland Integrated
Natural Science Center
Pennsylvania
Cool, Humid
Research
17,226
P
102
239
57
24
23
136
Pharmacia Building Q
Illinois
Cool, Humid
Research
16,351
M
N/A
473
307
57
33
75
Whitehead Biomedical Research
Building
Georgia
Warm, Humid
Research
30,194
M
682
681
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Louis Stokes Laboratories
Maryland
Mixed, Humid
Biological
27,363
P
N/A
726
323
161
78
164
Nidus Centre
Missouri
Mixed, Humid
Biological
3,831
M
463
476
173
161
40
117
Process and Environmental
Technology Laboratory
New Mexico
Warm, Dry
Instrumentation
14,069
M
385
463
N/A
71
N/A
60
The US EPA’s National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Lab
Michigan
Cool, Humid
Instrumentation
12,542
M
746
311
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Page 16-32
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
16.1.2 CBECS Energy Use Comparisons- United States
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), conducted in 2003, was used to calculate values
presented in this table. The data is gathered from the US. Dept. of Energy’s – Energy Information Administration
(EIA) to show the national average building energy use in the United States.
The table below summarizes the results published in 2003:
246
Average
Percentage
Electric
Average Site
Energy Use
Intensity
2
kWhr/m -yr
Education
College University
(campus level)
882
63%
378
Restaurant/Cafeteria
1925
53%
952
Nursing Homes
803
54%
390
Public Assembly
Library
775
59%
327
Table 3: University of Hawaii at Manoa Energy Use Breakdown Building Occupancy Type
16.2.1
HEEPI Benchmarks
Higher Education Environment Performance Improvement, known as HEEPI, is an organization that is
financed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and managed by the University of Bradford, in
collaboration with the:
Association of University Directors of Estates
Building Research Establishment (funded by Action Energy)
Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges
Standing Conference of Principals.
HEEPI aims to improve the environmental performance of universities and colleges by:
Developing environmental benchmarking within further and higher education
-
Recreation
428
55%
205
Running events to share best practice and build networks
-
Social / Meeting
321
57%
164
Providing an information resource
HEEPI published a summary of benchmarking results in August 2006, which can be found below.
Table 2: CBECS National Average Source Energy Use Comparison
The main points to note from these tables include:
Source Energy is a measure that accounts for the energy consumed on sire in addition to energy consumed during generation and
transmission in supplying energy to the site.
The high energy consumption of chemical science labs, largely due to the high levels of ventilation
associated with fume cupboards (Fume Hoods) and related occupant safety requirements.
16.1.3 University Of Hawaii Energy Use Comparisons
16.2.1.1.1.1 The presence of a secure facility greatly increases the energy consumption of
medical/bioscience laboratories
16.2.1.1.1.2 The generally lower total energy consumption figures associated with physical
engineering laboratories compares to other laboratory types, though electricity consumption is
proportionately higher.
For more information refer to www.heepi.org.uk
In 2001, HECO (Hawaiian Electric Company) supported a building by building audit of the Manoa University
campus to assess each building’s energy consumption and potential for energy conservation measures.
The following summarizes the results last published in 2007:
Building Occupancy
kWh/year
kWh/m2-yr
% of Total
Energy Use
Lab/Class
5,964,206
681
4.3
Lab/Class/Office
38,263,645
481
27.4
Office/Lab
16,487,311
372
11.8
Class/Office
30,277,375
234
21.7
Office
10,111,205
254
7.2
Library
15,097,136
301
10.8
Food/Facility/Office
8,376,420
453
6.0
Dormitory
5,096,752
55
496,084
9,632,147
Storage
Other (Clinic/Arena/Residential)
100
16.2 European Countries
Average Source
Energy Use
Intensity
2
kWhr/m -yr
Building Use
139,765,181
Total
Laboratory Type
Typical Practice Energy
Performance (kWh/m2yr)
Good Practice Energy
Performance (kWh/m2yr)
Best Practice Energy
Performance (kWh/m2-yr)
Fossil Fuel
Electricity
Fossil Fuel
Electricity
Fossil Fuel
Electricity
All Labs
296
312
135
227
79
143
Medical/Bioscience (with
secure facility)
397
362
198
227
100
245
3.6
Medical/Bioscience (w/o
secure facility)
289
300
196
242
130
109
102
0.35
Chemical Science
353
367
244
333
177
327
94
6.9
Physical Engineering
177
196
104
86
119
52
Page 16-33
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Admin/Support
166
90
107
46
88
28
16.2.1.3
BSRIA Benchmarks
Sports Centers
325
199
-
-
138
88
British Standards Research Institute Association (BSRIA) is a research, consultancy and test organization
helping companies in the built environment.
Libraries
176
186
-
-
73
73
Residences
240
57
198
47
126
35
Teaching
240
118
88
41
46
31
The BSRIA benchmarking results in the following table were published as the Rules of Thumb Guidelines for
Building Services in August 2003. There is very little difference between the Good Practice BSRIA
benchmarks, published in 2003, and the Good Practice benchmarks published in 2008. This indicates that
energy reduction strategies in 2003 are still valid solutions today.
Table 4: HEEPI Benchmarking Table
16.2.1.2
Electricity
kWh/m2-yr
CIBSE Benchmarks
CIBSE, The Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers, is the professional body, standard setter and
authority on building services engineering. It publishes Guidance and Codes which are internationally
recognized as authoritative, and sets the criteria for best practice in the profession. It is represented on major
bodies and organizations which govern construction and engineering occupations in the UK, Europe and
worldwide.
The table in Appendix D summarizes the benchmarking results published in December 2003 and 2008. The
benchmarks are from 2003 unless stated otherwise. The benchmarks are for each space type and offer a
direct comparison with the modeled benchmarks.
Electricity
kWh/m2-yr
Building Type
Fossil Fuel
kWh/m2-yr
Building Type
Fossil Fuel
kWh/m2-yr
Good
Practice
Typical
Good
Practice
Typical
Higher Education
Teaching
Research
-
22
-
151
-
105
-
150
Lecture hall
-
108
-
412
Office
-
36
-
95
Library
-
50
-
150
Catering
-
650
-
1100
-
150
-
360
Good
Typical
Good
Typical
Education
Catering, Bar, Restaurant
Lecture room, arts
137
149
182
257
Recreation
128
226
97
178
67
76
100
120
Lecture room, science
113
129
110
132
Offices
Air-conditioned (standard)
Naturally ventilated, cellular
33
54
79
151
Library, air-conditioned
292
404
173
245
Naturally ventilated, open plan
54
85
79
151
Library, naturally ventilated
46
64
115
161
59
75
310
390
Science Lab
155
175
110
132
Residential
Care Homes
*
100
residential, halls of residence
65
Residential, flats
45
Offices
Air-conditioned (standard)
Naturally ventilated, cellular
54
*
*
420
200
240
*
120
226
95
178
33
54
79
151
Naturally ventilated, open plan
54
85
79
151
Sport and Recreation
Fitness Center
Combined center
127
194
201
449
96
152
264
598
Table 6: BSIRA Benchmarks
Table 5: CIBSE Building Benchmarks
* Benchmark from 2008
Page 16-34
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
17 APPENDIX E – SUPPORTING INFORMATION REALTING TO CRD’S SEWAGE
HEAT RECOVERY FEASIBILITY STUDY
Page 17-35
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Page 17-36
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
University of Victoria – Integrated Energy Master Plan
11-1309-01
Page 17-37
Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, Kelowna, Prince George,
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement