Hilton Central School District Go Green Committee
Hilton Central School DistrictGo Green CommitteeHilton Central School DistrictGo Green CommitteeNovember 8, 2011Go Green Committee MembersNicole Allen-HickeyAl AltonMichelle AmesSteve Ayers, FacilitatorGreg BoothGary BuchholzJodi BurnsLisa CamillaciMichelle CivilettiHerve DauvergneDon FasoAdam GeistMike LageBrandon McAuliffAdam NortonTom OaksBob PelkeyJeri PickettDave PrestonBob ProrokSteve RandallLarry SchuthMike ShortJim SmithLarry SpeerKaren SpillmanKaren VelykGreg WahlSarah WarmbrodtSarah WelchDavid WoodwardGo Green GoalThe Hilton Central School District is committed to reducing commercial energy consumption and associated overall emissions by 50% by the 2015-2016 school year. This will be accomplished through the use of alternative energy sources and conservation, and the results will be independently verified. The benefit to our community will be a cleaner environment and a reduction in the operational costs of the school district, while providing a valuable learning experience for our students.Baseline DataMeasurementCurrent Amount2015-16 GoalNatural Gas Consumption (Decatherms)420,913210,456Electricity Consumption (Kwhs)5,984,8882,972,444Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2e Metric Tons)6,1603,080Alternative Energy Options ReviewedWind Turbines
Solar Energy
Geothermal Heating/Cooling
Hydrogen Fuel CellWind Turbines Description1 or more 900kw towers (approximately 330+ feet high)Each tower would be expected to generate 2mw of electricity annuallyElectricity generated would be metered up to the utility grid and credited against our accounts
Wind Turbines Campus ApplicationsNorthwood and Village campuses have best locations for distances from school and residential areasPreliminary feasibility study was positive a full feasibility study at a cost of $65,000 to cover both potential campus locations is recommendedWind Turbines Pros and ConsProsClean, renewable energyInsulates District from price fluctuationsLong useful life of investmentSignificant contribution towards meeting goals of reduced commercial energy usage and carbon footprint reductionAble to extend energy produced to all campusesConsSignificant upfront cost (about $2.5 million) to install turbineSize may generate adverse public reactionCould have adverse impact on Hilton Municipal Electric programSED has not determined if wind turbines will be eligible for building aid
Solar Energy DescriptionSolar arrays that are ballasted to the roofProduce electricity, as well as enable hydronic heating for hot water suppliesDoes not require cloud free skies to work, but do produce greater output under sunny skies
Solar Energy Campus ApplicationsRooftop array is best suited for installation concurrently with a new roof.
Village Elementary and Quest were identified as in need of new roofs in the Building Condition SurveySolar Energy Pros and ConsClean, renewable energy sourceReduces use of commercially produced electricity and production of greenhouse gassesCould be effective in a small application to support returning to cafeteria traysProne to diminished effectiveness during periods of cloud cover, or when receptors are covered with snowHigh cost and frequency of maintenancePossible issues with load bearing capacities of roofsGeothermal DescriptionWater is circulated through a closed-loop system to exchange energy with the earthA heat pump is used to circulate the temperate air, reducing the amount of heating/cooling required to maintain comfortable interior temperatures
Geothermal Campus ApplicationsRetrofitting a building requires installation of underground pipes, installation of heat pump, and replacement of interior heating/cooling distribution systemMost cost-effective when done in conjunction with a boiler replacement and when air conditioning is desiredThe High School is most likely to require a boiler replacement, and has a suitable surrounding campus for underground piping, with Merton Williams, Quest and Northwood also having some potential applicationsHydrogen Fuel Cell - DescriptionElectricity is generated using a hydrogen fuel rodGenerated electricity is used by the facility, with commercial electricity supplementing in periods of peak demand
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Pros and ConsClean, renewable energy sourceReduces use of commercially produced electricity and production of greenhouse gassesHigh cost of installationVery short (5 7 year) life of fuel rod, with high ($500,000) replacement costSignificant annual maintenance costs and time, including annual 1-2 week shutdownAlternative Energy Evaluation CriteriaCompatibility with Infrastructure NeedsContribution to Meeting Commercially Produced Energy Consumption Reduction GoalContribution to Meeting Carbon Footprint Reduction GoalReliabilityMaintenance and Staffing Requirements
Likelihood of Community AcceptancePotential for Environmental Impact IssuesEducational ValueNet Cost of Ownership (Acquisition Cost Plus Operating Costs Plus Decommissioning Costs minus Energy Cost Savings and Salvage/Trade-in Value)
Go Green RecommendationsWind Energy Based on the information that you received through your participation in the Green Committee, please evaluate wind turbines as an alternative energy source based on a 1 - 5 scale for each of the following criteria. Use the Alternative Energy Evaluation Matrix Rubric in forming your responses. For any criteria for which you do not yet feel you have adequate information, please select n/aAnswer Options12345n/aAverageScoreWeightedCompositeScore*Compatibility with Infrastructure Needs1005334.04.0Contribution to Meeting Commercially Produced Energy Consumption Reduction Goal1014514.18.2Contribution to Meeting Carbon Footprint Reduction Goal0034414.14.1Expected Reliability0025504.38.5Maintenance and Staffing Requirements1014414.08.0Likelihood of Community Acceptance2163002.82.8Potential for Environmental Impact Issues2333102.82.8Educational Value01101004.64.6Net Cost of Ownership (Acquisition Cost Plus Operating Costs Plus Decommissioning Costs minus Energy Cost Savings and Salvage/Trade-in Value)0004534.69.1answered question35.252.1skipped questionGo Green Recommendations, cont.Solar Energy Based on the information that you received through your participation in the Green Committee, please evaluate solar energy as an alternative energy source based on a 1 - 5 scale for each of the following criteria. Use the Alternative Energy Evaluation Matrix Rubric in forming your responses. For any criteria for which you do not yet feel you have adequate information, please select n/aAnswer Options12345n/aAverageScoreWeightedCompositeScore*Compatibility with Infrastructure Needs0124323.93.9Contribution to Meeting Commercially Produced Energy Consumption Reduction Goal0252123.26.4Contribution to Meeting Carbon Footprint Reduction Goal0251133.13.1Expected Reliability0135213.77.5Maintenance and Staffing Requirements0214323.87.6Likelihood of Community Acceptance0007504.44.4Potential for Environmental Impact Issues1005504.24.2Educational Value1014604.24.2Net Cost of Ownership (Acquisition Cost Plus Operating Costs Plus Decommissioning Costs minus Energy Cost Savings and Salvage/Trade-in Value)0414033.06.0answered question33.547.2Go Green Recommendations, cont.Geothermal Energy Based on the information that you received through your participation in the Green Committee, please evaluate geothermal energy as an alternative energy source based on a 1 - 5 scale for each of the following criteria. Use the Alternative Energy Evaluation Matrix Rubric in forming your responses. For any criteria for which you do not yet feel you have adequate information, please select n/aAnswer Options12345n/aAverageScoreWeightedCompositeScore*Compatibility with Infrastructure Needs1221423.53.5Contribution to Meeting Commercially Produced Energy Consumption Reduction Goal0242133.26.4Contribution to Meeting Carbon Footprint Reduction Goal0332133.13.1Expected Reliability0234213.57.1Maintenance and Staffing Requirements0413133.16.2Likelihood of Community Acceptance0025414.24.2Potential for Environmental Impact Issues0023524.34.3Educational Value1133313.53.5Net Cost of Ownership (Acquisition Cost Plus Operating Costs Plus Decommissioning Costs minus Energy Cost Savings and Salvage/Trade-in Value)0332133.16.2answered question31.644.6Go Green Recommendations, cont.Fuel Cell Energy Based on the information that you received through your participation in the Green Committee, please evaluate fuel cell energy as an alternative energy source based on a 1 - 5 scale for each of the following criteria. Use the Alternative Energy Evaluation Matrix Rubric in forming your responses. For any criteria for which you do not yet feel you have adequate information, please select n/aAnswer Options12345n/aAverageScoreWeightedCompositeScore*Compatibility with Infrastructure Needs0143133.43.4Contribution to Meeting Commercially Produced Energy Consumption Reduction Goal0333033.06.0Contribution to Meeting Carbon Footprint Reduction Goal0513123.03.0Expected Reliability5311021.83.6Maintenance and Staffing Requirements4131032.14.2Likelihood of Community Acceptance2114223.33.3Potential for Environmental Impact Issues0323223.43.4Educational Value0023434.24.2Net Cost of Ownership (Acquisition Cost Plus Operating Costs Plus Decommissioning Costs minus Energy Cost Savings and Salvage/Trade-in Value)6211021.73.4answered question26.034.6Go Green Recommendation - SummaryAlternative Energy OptionWeighted Composite Score*EvaluationWind Turbines52.1Significant PotentialSolar Energy47.2Moderate PotentialGeothermal Heating/Cooling44.6Moderate PotentialHydrogen Fuel Cell34.6Limited Potential*Weighting double counts scores in commercial energy reduction, expected reliability, maintenance and staffing requirements, and net cost of ownership. Maximum possible rating is 65.0 Next StepsBoard authorization of wind energy feasibility studyForwarding of recommendations to Project Planning Team for more detailed examination of feasibility for next capital projectCommittee to reconvene in January 2012 to determine next steps in meeting long-term goals
