led lighting & geothermal hvac - architect …...2015/11/19 · microsoft powerpoint - led...
TRANSCRIPT
LED Lighting & Geothermal HVACSIMON OSWALD ARCHITECTURE | CM ENGINEERING
Case Study #1: OHM Offices
CONSTRUCTION COST:$167 / sf
OPERATING COST:$1.09 / sf / year
Note data at right includes estimates for Nov & Dec of 2015
Case Study #1: OHM Offices
Average Office Building 67 kBTU / sf / yr $3.28 / sf / yr
EUI: Energy Use Intensity: kBTU / sf / year
OHM Offices 22.2 kBTU / sf / yr $1.09 / sf / yr
http://sefaira.com/resources/six-metrics-every-architect-should-know-and-how-to-use-them/
1/3 ENERGY USE
OF THE AVERAGE OFFICE BUILDING
Case Study #1: OHM Offices
OHM OfficeAnticipated Energy Star Rating
Score 63
Average OfficeWith Energy Star Rating
Score 99
https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/DataTrends_Office_20150129.pdf
ENERGY STAR
Out of 100 energy star office buildings, OHM would be one of the top two performers
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Arthur Center Site
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Each space had lighting selected to have 40 foot candles at the work surface
Power requirement by ASHRAE 90.1 must be below 1.1 watts/sq ft
Motion sensors will be used to turn lights on and off throughout the facility
Lighting Design Criteria
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
GC8 TrofferOvation T-8Encounter LED
Gleon LED
LIGHTING TYPES USED IN THE DESIGN
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
LED Lighting147 2x4
66 2x2
12,128 watts
.65 w/sq ft
60,000 hr lamp life
Lighting Calculations• Fluorescent
Lighting164 2x469 2x216,287 watts.814 w/sq ft$7.00 /lamp 18,000 hr lamp life
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Assuming 55 hrs per week 0.09 $/kwh 3152 watts per hour power savings 9014.7 kwh/yr Lighting power savings 811$/yr Lighting annual $ savings 45$/yr HVAC Savings 856$/yr Operating $ Savings Lamp replacement cost $1200/yr ($7200/6 years) (FL
only)
Fluorescent VS LED Lighting Economics
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Initial cost differential for LED -$9976 Annual cost savings 2056 $/yr ($856+$1200) Payback 4.8 yrs Power consumption is 3000 watts/hr lower
with LED Investigating LED lighting rebates by electric
utility
Economic Decision
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Provide an economic evaluation of prospective systems Look at energy efficiency Look at system maintenance/complexity First Cost and Life Cycle Cost of the potential solutions
Mechanical System Selection
Case Study #2: Arthur CenterSystem Comparison Inputs
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur Center
Case Study #2: Arthur CenterMechanical System Considerations
•Ground Source •No exposed equipment•Simple system•Easy to maintain•Energy efficient•Lowest life cycle cost•Tax / depreciation advantages•Utility support considerations•No gas required
•Traditional systems VAV and Single Zone•Exposed condensing units on ground or roof•Digital controls required for VAV•Electric reheat or hydronic heating and cooling•Maintenance is done by a more qualified individual•Higher life cycle cost•Higher operating cost•Gas may be required
Case Study #3: Central Bank of Boone County
Motorbanks with Geothermal: 1920 Legends Ave West - Boonville
1009 Smiley Lane - Columbia
Motorbanks w/o Geothermal: 201 E. Walnut St.
1000 W. Nifong, Bldg 9
2711 W. Broadway
Case Study #3: Central Bank of Boone County
AS1
Slide 24
AS1 Adrienne Stolwyk, 11/13/2015
Case Study #3: Central Bank of Boone County
AS1
Slide 25
AS1 Adrienne Stolwyk, 11/13/2015
Local Resources
Paul Warner Lighting Associates, Inc.
Frank Cunningham Columbia Water & Light, Energy Services Supervisor