Alisdair McGregor, PE, LEED APPrincipal, Arup Fellow, Arup

Analyzing the District – Part II

Analyzing the District – Part 2

Alisdair McGregor

3

Getting to Climate Positive

Optimal Scales

Optimal Scales

Optimal Scales - ENERGY

Key Variables

Resource Intensity

Climate Intensity

Resource Cost

Mixes of Use

Space Availability

Optimal Scales - ENERGYKey Variables

Resource Intensity

Climate Intensity

Resource Cost

Mixes of Use

Space Availability

Optimal Scales - WASTEKey Variables

Resource Intensity

Climate Intensity

Resource Cost

Mixes of Use

Space Availability

Optimal Scales – WATERKey Variables

Resource Intensity

Climate Intensity

Resource Cost

Mixes of Use

Space Availability

District Energy in Mixed Use

4. ECODISTRICT SYSTEMS

SYSTEM COMPONENTSWeighting of Selection Criteria

FACTORS WEIGHT

System Economics (Business Case; Balancing CapEx & OpEx)Weigh the costs and payback of each system 9

Community Finances (Effect on North Bayshore & Mt View Collective Budget)Weigh the business potential of each system to North Bayshore and Mountain View 9

Infrastructure Aesthetics & Open SpaceAssess the benefit or challenge each system may pose to the character or creation of public spaces 5

Reliability (Municipal System Enhancement / Disaster Prep)Ability of each system to provide a backup to municipal infrastructure or to provide critical functionality in the event of disruption

9

Regulatory Compliance (i.e. AB32, CEQUA, C3)The extent to which each system can assist the city in achieving compliance with legislated performance objectives 4

Future-Proofing / Resiliency (Adaptability)The ability of each system be effective & easy to use in potential environmental, regulatory, administrative or other future conditions

7

Social Sustainability (Public Awareness / Access / Equality)The extent to which each system can enhance public opportunities for use, involvement, exploration or enlightenment 6

Environmental Sustainability (Carbon/Resource Efficiency / Habitat & Ecology / Health)Rate the benefits or reductions in damage to the natural world each system provides 9

Leadership (Innovation / Inspiration)The ability for each system to provide an example to other municipalities and or bring positive press or references 5

Choosing by Advantages

CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGESystems Analysis

Conceptual Design

SupplyBaseline

Individual plant for each building

District level systems

DemandBaseline

Gold +

Deep Green

Review Existing Conditions

Sustainability, Risk, Financial

Analyzing District Systems

DISTRICT ENERGY FEASIBILITY TOOL (US Version)

BASE SYSTEMS OUTPUT PROFILES | INPUTS

Program (sf) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 WeatherExisting offi ce 0 0 0 1,000,000

New Offi ce Admin 254,607 256,768 715,697 0 Weather Dependency (%) Heating Cooling

Electricity

New Offi ce Engineering 710,022 735,698 2,232,864 0 Heating 100% 250% Heating 21.1 Existing offi ce 80% 50% 10%

Wellbeing 0 41,000 12,000 0 Cooling 100% 300% Cooling 23.9 New Offi ce Admin 80% 50% 10%

Housing 150,000 150,000 771,622 0 Electric 100% 400%New Offi ce Engineering

80% 50% 10%

Central services 34,540 30,200 267,818 0 Wellbeing 80% 50% 10%Total 1,149,168 1,213,666 4,000,000 1,000,000 Housing 80% 50% 10%

Central services 80% 50% 10%

Energy Utilization Intensities EUI (kWh/sf/yr)

Heating Cooling Electricity Total Shapes (out of 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

Existing offi ce 3.7 6.2 14.0 23.9 Existing offi ce 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.29 0.53 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18New Offi ce Admin 2.5 3.0 7.2 12.7 New Offi ce Admin 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.29 0.53 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18New Offi ce Engineering 3.3 4.9 11.0 19.2 New Offi ce 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.29 0.53 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

Wellbeing 19.0 7.6 5.3 31.9 Wellbeing 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.45 0.65 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.45

Housing 8.6 0.5 3.6 12.7 Housing 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.65 0.80 0.65 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.20Central services 9.8 3.8 9.0 22.6 Central services 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.55 0.70 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.70 0.45 0.45

Existing offi ce 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53 0.59 0.62 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.38Efficiencies(To convert from EUI's to loads)

Value Unit New Offi ce Admin 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53 0.59 0.62 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.38

Heating Plant 85%Heating plant effi ciency

New Offi ce Engineering

0.30 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.53 0.59 0.62 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.38

Cooling Plant 5.5 Cooling plant COP Wellbeing 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50 0.30

Electrical Infrastructure 99%Electric conversion effi ciency

Housing 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.29 0.36 0.49 0.61 0.70 0.79 0.87 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.86 0.78 0.69 0.62 0.54 0.46 0.35 0.20 0.15

Central services 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50 0.30

New Building Efficiency(Over CBECS/Other Survey Data)

% Electric Reduction

% Gas Reduction Existing offi ce 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.50 0.65 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.50 0.35

Existing offi ce 0% 0% New Offi ce Admin 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.65 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.50 0.35 0.20 0.20

New Offi ce Admin 0% 0%New Offi ce Engineering

0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.50 0.65 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.50 0.35

New Offi ce Engineering 0% 0% Wellbeing 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.35 0.35Wellbeing 0% 0% Housing 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.55 0.70 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.65 0.40 0.20Housing 0% 0% Central services 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.35 0.35Central services 0% 0%

Use New Building Efficiency Yes

Systems Output Intensity Heating Cooling Electricity TotalExisting offi ce 3.1 34.1 13.9 51.1New Offi ce Admin 2.1 16.5 7.1 25.8New Offi ce Engineering 2.8 27.0 10.9 40.6Wellbeing 16.2 41.8 5.2 63.2Housing 7.3 2.8 3.6 13.6Central services 8.3 20.9 8.9 38.1

See Weather Dependancy Basis

ELEC

See 8760 sheet

Setpoints (C)Demand Volatility

HTG

COOL

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Existing offi ce

New Office…

New Office…

Wellbeing

Housing

Weather Dependency

Heating

Cooling

Electricity

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Daily Heating ProfileExisting office New Office Admin New Office Engine ering

Wellbeing Housing Central services

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Daily Cooling ProfileExisting office New Office Admin New Office Engineering Wellbeing Housing Central services

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Daily Elec ProfileExisting office New Office Admin New Office Engineering

Conceptual Design DEF ANALYSIS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25

($5)

$0

$5

$10

Discounted Payback vs GoodBest vs GoodBetter vs Good

Years

2016

US$

mill

ion

THERMAL ENERGY CUP COMPARISONBest System, Least Cost

GOOD BETTER BEST

25-Yr Total Cost of Ownership

CapEx Cumulative 25-yr OpEx

US$

mill

ion

(in y

ear

spen

t)

Choosing by AdvantagesEconomics

Instantaneous Payback

No Payback

Good Better Best

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

($10)

($5)

$0

$5

$10 Discounted Payback vs Estimated

Bldg

Good vs BldgBetter vs BldgBest vs Bldg

2013

US

mill

ion

BLDG GOOD BETTER BEST

25-Yr Total Cost of Ownership

CapEx 25-Yr OpEx

US$

mill

ion

(in y

ear

spen

t)

THERMAL ENERGYRough Comparison to Building Scale

Assumptions:1.Used % premium from VRF @

NBV:• CapEx (CWL was $37.3M vs VRF

$31.3M)• O&M (CWL was $.50/sf vs VRF

$1.15/sf

2.Energy performance predicted by DEF:• 8.5% less energy needed annually

Years

<4 years <6 years ~6 years

19

Setting Strategies for Adaptation

20

Understanding Vulnerability

21

22

24

Here comes the commercial• Two Degrees: The Built Environment and Our

Changing Climate• www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415693004