nick hayes

Download Nick Hayes

Post on 10-Mar-2016

222 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • HEQDF Forum Delivering Sustainable Buildings in the HE Sector

    9th October 2012

    Sustainable Refurbishment Myth, Magic or Mandatory | Nick Hayes nick.hayes@echarris.com

  • Delivering Sustainable Buildings in the Higher Education Sector

    What are the Key Sector Challenges?

  • What are the Key Sector Challenges?1. How can high performance buildings meet

    customer expectations, whilst reducing energy and carbon use?

    2. How do we select methods and materials which give the biggest bang for bucks in relation to cost and carbon reduction?

    3. How can we positively influence staff and students to encourage reduction of carbon through behavioural change?

    October 2012HEQDF Forum 3

  • What are the Key Sector Challenges?1. How do we recognise the role buildings play in

    meeting the key priorities of the University?2. How can high performance buildings meet

    customer expectations, whilst reducing energy and carbon use?

    3. How do we select methods and materials which give the biggest bang for bucks in relation to cost and carbon reduction?

    4. How can we positively influence staff and students to encourage reduction of carbon through behavioural change?

    5. Who gains and who pays?6. How do you bring it all together?

    October 2012HEQDF Forum 4

  • How Sustainable Buildings Deliver Key Priorities

  • Key Drivers for Sustainable Buildings

    Sustainable buildings driven by a range of mandatory, sector and local priorities

    Climate change act - zero carbon non-domestic by 2019 Planning requirements

    Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) required for all commercial buildings on construction, refurbishment, sale, lease or renewal (Predicted rating)

    Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reputation and Positioning

    Display energy certificates (DECs) not mandatory for commercial buildings but leading organistaions voluntarily undertaking

    Peer Group positioning, Russell Group, Green University league table

    Energy Act F and G rated EPCs outlawed by 2018 Competitive advantage, marketing, student intake

    Carbon reduction commitment (CRC) mandatory for all organisations consuming > 6000 MWh/year (approx 500,000)

    Financial plans and business case

    Fines for non-compliance with EPCs, DECs and CRC High performing facilities, high attainment levels, building flexibility

    Future Policy A Code for Sustainable Buildings including mandatory energy performance standards?

    The need to differentiate

    October 2012HEQDF Forum 6

  • 13%

    19%

    19%

    31%

    69%

    75%

    75%

    75%

    88%

    88%

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

    Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) liability

    Operational cost savings from water efficiency

    Higher occupancy rates

    Greater overall building value

    Attraction and retention of quality workforce

    Operational cost savings from energy effiency

    Greater workforce productivity

    Value of public relations and free publicity

    Corporate environment commitment

    Greater indoor air and environmental quality

    % of Respondents

    Why Do Users Want Sustainable Buildings?

    Deloitte & Lockwood Report July 2008

    October 2012HEQDF Forum 7

  • Meeting Customer Expectations, Whilst Reducing Energy and Carbon Use

  • There are opportunities to learn from outside the sector approaches and technologies work across sector boundaries (and exemplars within!)

    Win, win opportunities lower costs and better working environments The simple things are important commisioning and user guidance Behavioural change matters and is the easiest way to reduce costs and

    carbon Whole life costing is key....

    Meeting Customer Expectations, Whilst Reducing Energy and Carbon Use

    What Lessons Have We Learned?

  • 13%

    19%

    31%

    31%

    37%

    38%

    40%

    62%

    69%

    7%

    29%

    38%

    19%

    56%

    50%

    38%

    49%

    53%

    25%

    31%

    93%

    86%

    57%

    49%

    62%

    13%

    19%

    25%

    13%

    7%

    13%

    7%

    7%

    7%

    7%

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

    Insurance Rates

    Permit Processing TimeTotal Renovation time

    Property ValueOccupancy Levels

    Workforce ProductivityAbility to Retain Talent

    Employee HealthEmployee Well-Being

    Ability to Attract TalentEmployee Comfort

    Goodwill / Brand

    Increased Significantly Increased SlightlyNo Change Decreased SignificantlyDecreased Slightly

    Broader Studies

    The Value and Impact of Green Buildings

    The link between people and buildings is key to achieve and demonstrate benefits

    Energy Saving (EPC D to B) 24 /m2/year

    Water Saving (Part L to BREEAM VG) 1 /m2/year

    Sickness Reduction (39% reduction) 180 /m2/year

    Productivity Improvement (5% increase) 690 /m2/year

    TOTAL 895 /m2/year

    Other Benefits to Occupier Brand, CSR, Recruitment and Retention

    Other Benefits to Investor Marketability, longer life, stable cashflows

    Value of Occupying Sustainable Buildings Impact of Green Development

    Deloitte & Lockwood Report July 2008

    October 2012HEQDF Forum 10

  • Market Value...

    ...and Differentiating Those Who Benefit

    Doing Good by Green Responsible Property Owner & Occupier Actions

    11

    Operating Costs

    Rents OccupancyBuilding

    Value

    3%(21%)

    3.5%

    7.5%(26%)

    8.9%

    Laggards Leaders

    Outdated asset Voluntarily displaying energy performance

    Lack of control Automatic meter reading

    PR risk / issues Benchmarking

    Unable to respond to market demand Continuous commissioning

    Future Setting targets

    Built into valuation Incentivising energy efficiency

    Upper Quartile Demand Finding savings

    Reputation Keeping ahead of R&L

    Competition Green Leases

    Climate change adaptation Engaging supply chain

    October 2012HEQDF Forum

  • Delivering the business case

  • Easy Wins and Whole Life Cost Savings

    Project TypePayback

    (yrs)Lighting upgrades 3.3

    Insulation (Loft, Cavity Wall, Roof, Double Glazing) 3.8Lighting controls 3.2

    Pipe work Insulation (Cooling, Heating) 2.7Voltage optimisation 3.4

    Heating (e.g. controls, zone control valves) 3.2BEMS - remotely managed 3.2

    Insulation - draught proofing 3.6

    Boilers - control systems 3.3

    Time switches 1.9

    Heating - TRVs 3.2

    Hot Water (Distribution improvements, point of use) 3.3BEMS - bureau remotely managed 3.6

    Ventilation (distribution, controls, air handling units) 2.4

    Easy Wins

    Based on a comparison of BREEAM buildings against building compliance standards (BRE Trust/Cyril Sweett)

    Naturally ventilated office Energy savings of 17% Water savings of 71%

    Air conditioned prestige office Energy savings of 26% Water savings of 55%

    Whole Life Cost Savings

    BRE Trust/Cyril Sweett

    October 2012HEQDF Forum 13

  • Greatest Bang for Buck

    The Whole Life Cost Approach

    Review of Motors for Baggage Handling System at Gatwick Airport Compared new PMM technology vs existing

    motors Benefits / Savings

    39% more energy efficient with similar carbon footprint

    Initial premium recovered in 2 years 1m NPV saving in 15 years in energy

    savings alone at current prices Reduce exposure to future energy price rises Easier maintenance Facilitates pan airport automatic control Better conveyor braking Lower spare stock requirements

    Case Study Review and Benefits / Savings() Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4Capital Costs 1,821,534 1,589,687 1,162,953 2,043,121

    Energy Costs 8,383,944 10,777,924 13,942,028 11,793,006

    Replacement Costs 520,839 697,103 675,499 699,280

    Maintenance Costs 467,973 423,711 428,153 510,276

    Total Whole Life Costs 11,194,290 13,470,425 16,658,633 15,045,683

    Ranking 1 2 3 4

    Value in Excess of Rank 1 2,276,135 5,464,342 3,851,392

    % in Excess of Rank 1 20.33% 48.81% 34.40%

    Analysis of Whole Life Costs

    14October 2012HEQDF Forum

    0

    4,000,000

    8,000,000

    12,000,000

    16,000,000

    20,000,000

    SEW P MM SEW LS Siemens

    T

    o

    t

    a

    l

    C

    o

    s

    t

    (

    )

    Capital Energy Replacement Maintenance

    Option 1Option 2

    Option 3Option 4

  • Cost and Carbon benefits Dual Currency Model

    Getting Informed Decisions

    Establish comparative costs vs. CO2 emissions of various component options over the life cycle and building a library of green components

    Making investment decisions on total cost and carbon impact is difficult

    Create a user friendly tool to compare various design options developed through modelling of whole life cost for financial and carbon impact

    Defining carbon content for key components though the component life cycle

    Challenges

    Started with a the faade element and compared lifecycle costs over the whole life of the component asset

    Breakdown of initial capital investment, operational cost and replacement cost for each faade type

    Measurement of carbon emissions over the whole life cycle of the asset

    Cost vs. Carbon comparison of different faade options

    Outcomes

    HEQDF Forum 15October 2012

  • Informed Decision Making Tools

    User friendly tools to compare various design options developed through modelling of whole life cost for financial and carbon impact

    October 2012HEQDF Forum 16

  • Who Gains and Who Pays?