alisdair mcgregor, pe, leed ap principal, arup fellow, arup
DESCRIPTION
Analyzing the Eco-District. Alisdair McGregor, PE, LEED AP Principal, Arup Fellow, Arup. Integrated Resource Management. A holistic quantitative model for improved understanding of urban systems and the impact of decisions. Synergy vs Efficiency. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Alisdair McGregor, PE, LEED AP
Principal, Arup Fellow, Arup
Analyzing the Eco-District
2
Integrated Resource Management
A holistic quantitative model for improved understanding of urban systems and the impact of decisions
WATERENERGY
TRANSPORT
CARBON
SOCIETY
ECONOMY
MATERIALWASTE
LANDSCAPE
WEATHER
HUMAN COMFORT
RATING SYSTEMS
Synergy vs Efficiency
4
How do we balance the warm and fuzzy with hard data?
5
v
waste materials
watertransportationenergy carbonland use
Integrated Resource Management (IRM)
Energy consumption
CO2 emissions (indirect,
direct, mobile)
Waste generated & diverted
Com
posi
tion
Gen
erat
ion
Lan
d us
e de
man
d
Em
issi
on r
ates
Em
issi
on fa
ctor
s, tr
ip
leng
th, %
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
rate
s
Des
ign
life,
mat
eria
l co
nsum
ptio
n
Supp
ly
Embodied Carbon in Materials
VMTs
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20E xh ib it E n v iro n me n ta l S u sta in a b ility
P ro v id e W e lc o min g E n v iro n me n t
B e B e a u tifu l
C o n v e y S e rio u sn e ss o f G S B E d u c a tio n
P ro v id e E rg o n o mic C o mfo rt
P ro v id e A c o u stic P e rfo rma n c e
P ro v id e T h e rma l C o mfo rt
P ro v id e G o o d L ig h t
P ro v id e G o o d In d o o r A ir Q u a lity
E n a b le F u tu re E xp a n sio n
E n a b le V a rie ty o f C o n fig u ra tio n s
P ro v id e T ra n sp o rta tio n O p tio n s
R e fle c t S ta n fo rd L o o k a n d F e e l
U se L a n d R e sp o n sib ly
M in imize N e t W a te r U se M in imize N e t E n e rg y U se
U se Ma te ria ls R e sp o n sib ly
E n g a g e In fo rma tio n R e so u rc e s
E n g a g e S tu d e n ts
E n g a g e F a c u lty
E n g a g e B u sin e ss C o mm u n ity
E n g a g e A lu mn i
E n g a g e S ta n fo rd
C o lla b o ra te E xte rn a lly
C o lla b o ra te In te rn a lly
M in imize F irst C o st
M in imize P ro je c t D u ra tio n
M in imize O p e ra tio n C o st
M in imize L ia b ility
compare baseline and design across
multiple indicators
compare baseline with design
compare alternatives
B a se lin e
M itig a tio n
compare with comparable everyday items (e.g. waste
generation measured in # of garbage bins)
Lan
dtak
e D
ensi
ty
Uni
ts
Water consumption/w
astewater generation
detect “hotspots” of resource
consumption across the plan
6
v
waste materials
watertransportationenergy carbonland use
Integrated Resource Management (IRM)
Energy consumption
CO2 emissions (indirect,
direct, mobile)
Waste generated & diverted
Com
posi
tion
Gen
erat
ion
Lan
d us
e de
man
d
Em
issi
on r
ates
Em
issi
on fa
ctor
s, tr
ip
leng
th, %
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
rate
s
Des
ign
life,
mat
eria
l co
nsum
ptio
n
Supp
ly
Embodied Carbon in Materials
VMTs
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20E xh ib it E n v iro n me n ta l S u sta in a b ility
P ro v id e W e lc o min g E n v iro n me n t
B e B e a u tifu l
C o n v e y S e rio u sn e ss o f G S B E d u c a tio n
P ro v id e E rg o n o mic C o mfo rt
P ro v id e A c o u stic P e rfo rma n c e
P ro v id e T h e rma l C o mfo rt
P ro v id e G o o d L ig h t
P ro v id e G o o d In d o o r A ir Q u a lity
E n a b le F u tu re E xp a n sio n
E n a b le V a rie ty o f C o n fig u ra tio n s
P ro v id e T ra n sp o rta tio n O p tio n s
R e fle c t S ta n fo rd L o o k a n d F e e l
U se L a n d R e sp o n sib ly
M in imize N e t W a te r U se M in imize N e t E n e rg y U se
U se Ma te ria ls R e sp o n sib ly
E n g a g e In fo rma tio n R e so u rc e s
E n g a g e S tu d e n ts
E n g a g e F a c u lty
E n g a g e B u sin e ss C o mm u n ity
E n g a g e A lu mn i
E n g a g e S ta n fo rd
C o lla b o ra te E xte rn a lly
C o lla b o ra te In te rn a lly
M in imize F irst C o st
M in imize P ro je c t D u ra tio n
M in imize O p e ra tio n C o st
M in imize L ia b ility
compare baseline and design across
multiple indicators
compare baseline with design
compare alternatives
B a se lin e
M itig a tio n
compare with comparable everyday items (e.g. waste
generation measured in # of garbage bins)
Lan
dtak
e D
ensi
ty
Uni
ts
Water consumption/w
astewater generation
detect “hotspots” of resource
consumption across the plan
7
v
waste materials
watertransportationenergy carbonland use
Integrated Resource Management (IRM)
Energy consumption
CO2 emissions (indirect,
direct, mobile)
Waste generated & diverted
Com
posi
tion
Gen
erat
ion
Lan
d us
e de
man
d
Em
issi
on r
ates
Em
issi
on fa
ctor
s, tr
ip
leng
th, %
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
rate
s
Des
ign
life,
mat
eria
l co
nsum
ptio
n
Supp
ly
Embodied Carbon in Materials
VMTs
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20E xh ib it E n v iro n me n ta l S u sta in a b ility
P ro v id e W e lc o min g E n v iro n me n t
B e B e a u tifu l
C o n v e y S e rio u sn e ss o f G S B E d u c a tio n
P ro v id e E rg o n o mic C o mfo rt
P ro v id e A c o u stic P e rfo rma n c e
P ro v id e T h e rma l C o mfo rt
P ro v id e G o o d L ig h t
P ro v id e G o o d In d o o r A ir Q u a lity
E n a b le F u tu re E xp a n sio n
E n a b le V a rie ty o f C o n fig u ra tio n s
P ro v id e T ra n sp o rta tio n O p tio n s
R e fle c t S ta n fo rd L o o k a n d F e e l
U se L a n d R e sp o n sib ly
M in imize N e t W a te r U se M in imize N e t E n e rg y U se
U se Ma te ria ls R e sp o n sib ly
E n g a g e In fo rma tio n R e so u rc e s
E n g a g e S tu d e n ts
E n g a g e F a c u lty
E n g a g e B u sin e ss C o mm u n ity
E n g a g e A lu mn i
E n g a g e S ta n fo rd
C o lla b o ra te E xte rn a lly
C o lla b o ra te In te rn a lly
M in imize F irst C o st
M in imize P ro je c t D u ra tio n
M in imize O p e ra tio n C o st
M in imize L ia b ility
compare baseline and design across
multiple indicators
compare baseline with design
compare alternatives
B a se lin e
M itig a tio n
compare with comparable everyday items (e.g. waste
generation measured in # of garbage bins)
Lan
dtak
e D
ensi
ty
Uni
ts
Water consumption/w
astewater generation
detect “hotspots” of resource
consumption across the plan
8
Greenhouse Gases and Emissions
Optimized and Informed Planning
- Plan evolution- Performance optimization
IRM model
Develop strategies
Refinestrategies
IRM model
OptimizeStrategies
11
12
Results
Chose 284 KPI’s. Found all reference input (52,000 cells)Found 1224 actual inputsPackett-Burman Sensitivity Analysis
13
Integrated Resource Management (IRM)
Anaerobic Digestion
13% waste diversion
5% energy reduction
Electric Vehicles
3% carbon savings
10% reduction in
parking
6% energy demand
14
Integrated Resource Management (IRM)
Water Efficiency Strategies
Fixtures and Appliances
15% water reduction
3% energy savings
Energy Efficiency Strategies
District Water Loop
40% water reduction
4% energy savings
15
16
IRM images
18
19
Good Data vs Clarity of Output
20
Making the Data Accessible to a Wider Audience
Baseline
Mitigation
27 28 29 30 31 32 33
waste
garbage trucks of waste per day
People living in c_life will see their carbon footprint reduced by 37% in 2012 and by 43% in 2037.
Credit Sauerbach and Hutton Architken