renewable energy consumption trends united states, 1995-2006 · renewable energy consumption trends...
TRANSCRIPT
Renewable Energy Consumption Trends United States, 1995-2006
Source: Energy Information Administration/Monthly Energy Review March 2007
060504030201009998979695
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Quadrillion BTU
Hydro-Electric PowerBiomassOther
Electric PowerTransportation
IndustrialCommercial
Residential
5
4
3
2
1
0
Quadrillion BTU
U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption By Sector, 2006
Source: Energy Information Administration/Monthly Energy Review March 2007
0.50.1
1.6
0.5
3.9
Renewable EnergyNuclear Electric Power
Fossil Fuels
100
80
60
40
20
0
Quadrillion BTU
U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption Compared with Other Resources, 2006
Source: Energy Information Administration/Monthly Energy Review March 2007
85.4
8.2 6.5
U.S. Cumulative Capacity Additions by Fuel Type
Source: National Commission on Energy Policy
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Renewable Energy Sources
Source: Energy Information Administration
Gas, 20.90%
Nuclear, 6.50%
Renewables,
13.10%Coal, 25.10%
Non-Renew.
Waste, 0.20%
Oil, 34.30%
Fuel Shares of World Total PrimaryEnergy Supply 2004
Source: International Energy Agency
Evolution ofWorld Total Primary Energy Supply By Fuel, 1971-2004
Source: International Energy Agency
Million Tons of Oil Equivalent
20102005
10
8
6
4
2
0
Percent
Green Market Value As a Percentage of Total Construction, 2005 vs. 2010 (Projected)
Source: McGraw-Hill Construction
2%
5 - 10%
2010 Projections of Green Market Size US$ Billions
Source: McGraw-Hill Construction
2%
5 - 10%Market Low End High End
Residential 19 38
Non-Residnetial 10.2 20.5
Total 29.2 58.5
Projections
TOTO Ltd.
• World headquarters, Kitakyushu, Japan’
• World’s largest plumbing fixture manufacturer inexcess of $4 billion US in annual sales
• Stock traded on Tokyo Stock Exchange
TOTO is a Global Brand
JapanNo.1 share
KoreaNo.1 share
ChinaNo.1 share
IndonesiaNo.1 share
ThailandNo.1 share
USAIncreasing share
CanadaIncreasing share
VietnamIncreasing share
IndiaIncreasing share
Middle EastIncreasing share
Singapore/Malaysia/PhilippineIncreasing share
South AmericaIncreasing share
TOTO USA, Inc.
• Established 1990 in Torrance, CA (zero sales)
• 2006 sales: $225 million
• 2007 Sales projection: $250 million
• Currently the number three US full-line plumbingfixture manufacturer
• Currently the fastest growing major plumbing fixturemanufacturer in the US
TOTO Growth Since 2003
Sales ($=Million)
132
170
200
226
0
50
100
150
200
250
2003 2004 2005 2006
TOTO Innovations in Technology:
Computer Modeling and Optimization
Of Hydraulic Performance
Surface of typical glazed china undermagnification
Viewed under atomic force microscopy
Surface of typical glazed china under magnificationAfter 2 to 3 years of use
Dirt particles may be
only microns in size
1/10th of 1 mm
Surface of Super Smooth Glazing
Smooth to the nanometer level
1/10th of 1
mm
Super flat surface remains unaffected over time
Smooth to the nanometer level
1/10th of 1 mm
TOTO Innovations in Technology:SanaGloss Super Smooth Glaze
1/10th of 1 mm
TOTO Innovations in Technology:
EcoPower Self-Generating Faucet
Water passing throughturbine generates power,which is sent to capacitorsand stored for next use.
Capacitors store powerto activate Solenoidcontrolling water flow.
Solenoid opens sendingwater to the faucet.
Faucet senses usersneed for water flow.
TOTO Innovations in Technology
Testing & Validation of Performance
Toilet paper sheets
(double type)
10
Sinking waste
500g
Floating Waste
Granule type waste
Toilet paper sheets
(single type)
Ink test
Granule
Mix Media
TRAPWAY
SIZE
Big Diameter
15
50
TOTO
Standard
ANSI
Standard
0
400g
TOTO
Standard
ANSI
Standard
AS FLOWISE
MINIMUM
STANDARD
2-1/2"
TOTO HET
KOHLER
CIMARRON HET
0
0
0
Competitor x
Competitor y
TOTO Innovations in Technology
Washlets & Neorest Toilets
Corporate/Industry
TOTO U.S.A. is the North American division of TOTO, Ltd., the world’s
largest plumbing products manufacturer. Toto has demonstrated
leadership and innovation in water efficiency through their product
development, manufacturing processes, and advocacy. TOTO pioneered
the development of the first American 1.6 gpf toilet prior to the 1992
legislation requiring it. TOTO has been at the forefront of high efficiency
toilet (1.28 gpf) development as well. Additionally, TOTO has implemented
a water recycling program in their manufacturing facility that reduces water
use by 18% and has been an active promoter of water efficient products by
working with national organizations and offering educational tours of their
manufacturing plant.
Understanding Value
• Ideas of value change with time
• More than just reduced operating costs
• Image is important
Owner-Occupiers Have aDirect Connection to Building Performance24
• In the mid ninetiesnearly all “green”buildings wereowner occupied
• Owners could seevalue of improvedwork environmentas well as reducedenergy costs
High degree of daylight
User control of temperature
Operable windows
Flexible workspace
Good air quality
Good acoustics
The Effective Work Environment
The Developer Community
• Initially cautious due toperceived extra cost
• Now recognizing value asopposed to cost
• Tenants start to demand betterspace
• Hines helps develop LEED forCore & Shell
• All new Hines commercialoffices will be LEED Silver
The Finance Sector
• Goldman Sachs will invest $1 billion inrenewable energy and conservation.
• They and other financial groups arebroadening the application of social andenvironmental factors into investmentand loan operations
Today’sBusinessPractices
• Fossil fueldependence
• Waste in many forms
• Products that don’taccount for full coststo society
• Unintended negativeconsequences for ourcustomers andbusiness
FROM
QuickWins
< 1yr
InnovationProjects
1 – 4 yrs
Big GameChange
Ongoing
Sustainable Value Networks
Sustainable Pathway
Using competitive forces to create a race to the top
SustainableBusinessPractices
• Use 100% renewableenergy
• Produce zero waste
• Sell products thatsustain our resourcesand environment
• A win for society anda win for business
TO
Roadmap to Sustainability
Show me the Evidence
Customers Prefer Green• http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/
CalPERS, Sacramento – LEED Silver
Heiffer HQ, Little Rock, AR
• 54% Below
• ASHRAE 90.1 1999
Druk White Lotus School, Ladakh, Northern India
http://associates.global.arup.com/AA_Internet/DrukWhiteLotusSchool/Home.htm
Druk White Lotus School,Ladakh, Northern India
• Flexible high quality teachingspaces;
• Self regulating site – water cycleand waste management;
• Appropriate building technologies;
• No imported energy;
• Maximised passive and activesolar potential;
• Sustainable material resource;
• Seismic performance ofstructures;
• Solar assisted ventilated improvedpit (VIP) latrines.
Strategies for Green Buildings
• Climate responsive
• Operable windows
• Daylight
• Occupant controls
• Intelligent facades
• 20% energy savings easy, >50% reduction demandsintegrated design
Stanford E&E
Design for Passive Systems
Integrated Design
• Designing the Atriumto act as a driver fornatural ventilation
• Use both intuition andcomputational fluiddynamics
Design for Passive Design Integrated Design – Refining Daylighting Strategies
Refining theAtriumdaylightingusing lightingsimulationprograms
• 525 Golden Gate
Low Energy in an Urban Context
Existing 1155 Market (22.0 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Title 24 Baseline (15.7 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Improved Envelope 20% (12.5 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Daylighting 35% (10.2 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Improved Systems 56% (6.9 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Chilled Ceilings 57% (6.8 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Natural Ventilation 59% (6.4 kW-hr/sqft/yr)Plug Load Reduction 61% (6.1 kW-hr/sqft/yr)
Energy Consumption AnalysisAnnual Energy Comparison
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
Existing Bldg T-24 Baseline Improved Envel Daylighting Improved
Systems
Chilled Ceilings Natural Vent Reduced Plug
Loads
Energy Model
An
nu
al E
nerg
y U
se (
kW
h/y
ear)
Cities
• Take up 2% of land surface of Earth
• House 50% of World’s population
• Consume 75% of resources
• Produce 75% of pollution
• Parasite on the World?
or
• Key to sustainable living?
2007 – the turning point
World Population
• 1950: 29% urban / 71% rural
• 1990: 43% urban / 57% rural
• 2030: 61% urban / 39% rural
Source: Population Division of the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations
Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2004Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The2003 Revision
• 180,000 people added to theurban population every day
TREASURE ISLANDTREASURE ISLANDA New San Francisco NeighborhoodA New San Francisco Neighborhood
Incorporating Sustainability intoTreasure Island: A Triple Bottom Line Approach
Environmental Stewardship: The community is designed to preserve
natural resources, reduce environmental impacts and coexist peacefully with
the natural setting.
Social Benefits: Creating a vibrant, compact, livable community and
fostering a strong sense of place.
Economic Vitality: Providing housing choices for different income levels,
embracing resource efficient strategies that will reduce basic household
expenditures, and spurring job growth and new small businesses.
Treasure Island Sustainability Strategies
Sustainabilityachievements
Transportationalternatives
Urban village
Harmonizationwith the
elements
Energystrategy
Waterconservationand recycling
Landscapingand open
space
WasteReduction
Environ-mentallyfriendly
materials
Affordablehousing
Sustainabilityeducation and
public art
CommunityGarden
28%
15%
4%20%
32%
1% Domestic
Commercial and
Public
Industrial Buildings
Industrial Process
Transport
Agriculture
UK CO2 emissions 2000 (Source:ODPM)
Buildings: Responsible for 50% UK carbon emissions
Green building – Mainstream? Exemplar?
EU: Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
UK: Planning and Building Regulations
Codelevel 6
Codelevel 4
Codelevel 3
Equivalent carbonstandard in code
Zerocarbon
44%25%Improvement ascompared to Part L2006
201620132010Date
The path to zero carbon homes
Renewable energy generating energy for all heating andelectric use in the home
Zero carbon home6
Offsetting equivalent emissions as regulated by Part L(i.e all emissions from space and water heating, plus asmall amount of electric for pumps and fans)
100%5
Best practice fabric standards plus significant renewableenergy generation.
44%4
Likely to require some renewable generation. Standardsequivalent to current Energy Saving Trust best practice.
25%3
Possible using efficiency measures alone (Air tightness3 – 5m3/hr/m2), beyond this point renewables likely to bemore cost effective than further fabric improvements.
18%2
Achievable through best practice U value specification.Reasonable air tightness, minimizing thermal bridges
10%1
ImplicationsPercentageImprovement over
Part L 2006
Level
Micro-Generation Promoters
Tax incentives
Stamp duty reductions
Reverse purchase ofelectricity
Sustainable Energy Act
Industry GrantsBuilding regulations
(zero CO2)
Council tax rebatesEnergy White PaperEU buildings regulations
Low Carbon BuildingProgram
Climate Change BillSpring council decision
GRANTSACTS OF PARLIAMENTSEU REGULATIONS
Micro generation financial incentives?
• UK: Low Carbon Building Programme: grants for renewableenergy technologies for all sectors as long as your buildingis energy efficient.
• Germany: ‘100,000 solar roofs programme’ (now ended)
• Spain, Italy, Germany: Feed-in tariff for electricity generatedfrom renewables: could more than 2.5x more than standardelectricity. Pay-back time decreases.
• France: 70-95% capital grants if off grid (for PV and wind)
• Germany: Grants for biomass boilers, ground source heatingsystems
• Most: tax breaks for renewable energy technologies
BREEAM Schemes and Assessment Types
Offices
Retail
Schools
EcoHomes
Industrial
Bespoke
• Management
• Health & Well
being
• Energy
• Transport
• Water
• Materials
• Land Use
• Ecology
• Pollution
BREEAMRating
BREEAM Methodology
Environmental Performance
Num
bers
of
build
ings
Reg
ula
tory
min
imu
m
High Quality Sector
Exemplars
BREEAM
Additional costs to achievelow or zero carbon housing
e Biomass CHP jBiomass communal
heating + large wind
kBiomass CHP (resi
only)
5-10% aBiomass communal
heating + micro wind f
Biomass communal
heating + small windh
Biomass CHP
maximum + small
wind
nBiomass CHP (resi
+ non-resi heat load)
10-15% bPV + biomass
communal heatingg
PV + biomass
communal heating l
PV + biomass
communal heating
15-20% cPV + communal
GSHP heatingi
Biomass CHP
maximum + PVo
Biomass communal
heating + large wind
+ PV
>25% d
Biomass communal
heating + max PV +
small wind
100% Regulated
Emissions100% Total Emissions
100% Regulated
Emissions***
%
increase
in build
cost
2.5-5%
Residential Case Studies: Extra Build Cost for Carbon Neutrality from Best Practice 2006
CS3: Urban extension, mixed use (2000
dwellings)
100% Regulated
Emissions100% Total Emissions100% Total Emissions
CS1: City Infill (30 dwellings) CS2: Market town (300 dwellings)
Base build cost: £923 per m2 Base build cost: £903 per m2 Base build cost: £903 per m2
Comparison of £/tonne CO2 saved
£0
£2,000
£4,000
£6,000
£8,000
£10,000
£12,000
£14,000
£16,000
PV Domestic
(1-3kWp)
SHW
Domestic
(250kW -
2MW)
(2-50kW) Building
Mounted
Micro (1-
2kW)
(50-250kW) (100-500kW) (1-5MW) Small
Biomass (50-
500kWe)
Large
Biomass
(2MWe+)
Communal
GSHP
£/t
on
ne
CO
2 s
av
ed
pe
r y
ea
r
2006
2011
2020
WIND
Biomass district
heating incl. cost
of heat main
Biomass CHP
incl. cost of heat
mainCF=10%
CF=10%
CF=15%
CF=20%
CF= capacity factor
All of these communal options assume that
plant sized to meet baseload with gas boilers
for back up
Embodied Energy and CO2
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Years
Cu
mu
lati
ve
To
nn
es
CO
2 E
mit
ted
Typical House
Energy efficient house
Energy efficient house + SWH
Energy efficient house + SWH + PV
"Carbon Neutral Home", Energy efficient house +SWH + PV + Swift Wind Turbine
Embodied
CO2 CO2 break even point for carbon neutral
home vs. 2006 Part L house
Four Step Carbon Emission Reduction Strategy
Step 1: Minimise demand for heating, cooling, lighting:Low U-valuesGood airtightnessSolar shadingNatural light
Step 2: Use efficient systems to meet loads:Heat recoveryVariable speed drives on pumps and fansChilled BeamsLighting control systemsCombined Heat and Power
Step 3: Use renewable energy:Ground SourceBore holesPhotovoltaics
Step 4: Future Proofing
Carb
on
im
pact
Base building
Route to low carbon: Passiv Haus standard
Route to low carbon: District heating networks?
Green building:Adnam’s Brewery Distribution Centre
Green Building: British Antarctic Survey - Halley VI
Green Buildings: Harlow North
Stephen’s Croft
40MW
Lockerbie,
Scotland.
25,3031.9£3,855,29969,976,264£7,511,794Total
Annual CO2
saving(tonnes)
SimplePayback(years)
Annual costsaving
Annual Energysaving (kWh)
Capital costOpportunity
‘Greening’ existing buildings:
Carbon management for major retailer
Good house keeping: lighting, escalators, air handling units: 10% savings
Los Angeles Community College District’sGreen Building Policy
How the Largest Public CommunityCollege system in the US developed a
policy to save money and save theenvironment
LACCD: 9 colleges, 880 sq. miles
• Governed by a 7-member elected part-time Boardof Trustees
• CEO = Chancellor
• 9 college presidents, 27 VPs (3 per college)
• Approx. 8000 employees
Step One: Money to Build and Improve
• California public education is heavily dependenton voter approval for financial resources
• LACCD voters pass a bond to build/rebuild thecolleges in April 2001: $1.45 billion
May 2001
• A trustee asks: “Are we going to use droughttolerant landscaping and save water? Are wegoing to use solar power and save electricity?”
• The concept of “saving energy” and “reducingfuture costs” enters the dialogue
Absence of Examples
• At the beginning, the only example of greenbuilding we had was the concept of waterlessurinals
• This did not exactly get us off to a thrilling start forour policy
Public Policy-Making: Democracyin Action
• LACCD operates under state law requiring “SharedGovernance” i.e. faculty and staff input to decision-making
• The elected Board of Trustees must maintain goodinternal communications / relations as well as get goodPR and get re-elected
Getting Folks onBoard for Green Building: Quite a Challenge
• “How much more will it cost?”
• “How many buildings won’t get built?”
• “Will it slow down the building program?”
• These are just some of the initial concerns expressedby College Presidents, faculty and staff.
Bringing in the External Actors:Summer 2001 – Spring 2002
• Sierra Club, Global Green, Greenpeace, and otherenvironmental groups begin discussions with trustees
• Close coordination is required between policymakersand external support groups
• Public hearings are held; 300 people come to supporta green building policy (Nov 2001)
Resistance and Re-education:2001-2002
Those who objected based on cost needed to beeducated about “life cycle costs” and other newconcepts about building
Many outside experts give testimony and provide data:Coalition for Clean Air, City of Los Angeles pro-sustainability staff, various public and private utilities,US Green Building Council, and many more
Moving towards Policy
Board of Trustees hold committee meetings and publichearings from Fall 2001 through Spring 2002
Greenpeace mobilizes students
on all 9 campuses
Letters are received from numerous state and localelected officials supporting a green building policy(carefully coordinated by external allies)
Details, details,the Devil is in the Details!
• How to achieve measurable goals of energy savings,long term cost savings, and environmentalimprovement?
• LACCD learns to speak “LEED” lingo
• All architects and engineers must have a LEED trainedstaff member in order to get a contract
Policy Passes Board March 2002
• Hundreds of supporters applauded when the Boardunanimously passed a detailed
Green Building policy
• Local media covered the process with moderatelyfavorable articles
• LACCD began to mentor others, including CaliforniaState University and University of California studentactivists
Other entities jointhe Green Building movement 2002 -
• After several years of planning, the City of Los Angelesofficially passes a Green building policy one month afterLACCD
• LA Unified School District concretizes its version, CHPS (agreen building plan for K-12)
• CSU Trustees pass a policy for 23 campuses of the CSUsystem (2004)
• Gov Schwarzenegger announces Executive Order S-20-04requiring LEED standards
• for state buildings (Dec 2004)
Awards and Recognitions
• Global Green and Mikael Gorbachev honor LACCD(March 2004)
• Southern Calif Gas Company honors LACCD
(Oct 2004)
• The Climate Group (UK) recognizes LACCD as a LowCarbon Leader (June 2005)
• LACCD gets CA State Flex Your Power award
(June 2006)
Marketplace Changes Help Everyone
• Since LACCD passed its policy, hundreds of Southern Califarchitects, designers and other building experts haveobtained LEED certification
• The number of solar power contractors and other “greenbuilding” providers has grown enormously
• Every RFP/RFQ LACCD announces includes a requirementfor green building skills or commitments
Challenges Ahead forLACCD Green Building Program
• astronomical construction cost increases due toChina’s growth, New Orleans reconstruction, war inIraq, etc.
• shortage of skilled personnel (due to vast public worksprograms in the region)
• shortage of supplies, such as cement (but new optionsare being developed)
• re-educating employees to enjoy and properlyimplement green building (i.e. lower thermostats, turnoff lights, and enjoy those waterless urinals!)
Sustainable Development Curriculum
• Green Buildings on different Campuses with basic focus on technology and learning from actual projects
• Courses offered as certificated, licenses and advanced degrees
• Career opportunities and training for jobs, new companies and advanced degrees
• Collaborate with unions, private businesses, public, government andnon-profit sectors
• Provide actual experiences on campus through building programs
• Sustainable Development Curriculum: solar, wind, geothermal, hybrid technologies, economics, etc as well as new businesses, life cycle accounting, investment, operations andmaintenance
•Impact on Climate Change -- the solutions fro global warming are available today for immediate implementation
Big Question / The Bottom Line
• Committed To Building Sustainably
• $2.2 Billion and 40 plus new buildings
• No more staff for cleaning
• No new State money for maintenance
• New buildings mean more energy cost
• How do we clean, maintain, and power 3 million squarefeet of new buildings?
Answer
1. Technology – Computer Assisted FacilitiesManagement software will allow existing staff to bemore productive
2. Lower Maintenance Cost - Sustainable BuildingsRequire Less Maintenance
3. Eliminate Energy Costs – Self-Generate all energyneeds, go off the grid, save roughly $ 9 million peryear district wide