Amory B. Lovins Cofounder and Chief Scientist Rocky Mountain Institute

Transcription

1 Integrative Design for Zero/Positive Energy Buildings Amory B. Lovins Cofounder and Chief Scientist Rocky Mountain Institute エイモリー B. ロビンス ロッキーマウンテン 研 究 所 共 同 創 設 者 主 任 科 学 者 NEDO Innovation for Cool Earth Forum (ICEF 2015) Zero Energy Building Session Tōkyō, 8 October 2015 東 京 2015 年 10 月08 日 CARBON ROCKY MOUNTAIN IN STIT U TE WA R R O O M 2015 Rocky Mountain Institute

2 U.S. buildings: 3 4 energy productivity worth 4 its cost (site energy intensities in kwh/m 2 -y; U.S. office median ~293) ~ ( 38%) ( 70%) ( 63%) ( 83% to 85%) 2010 retrofit New York City 2013 retrofit Denver, Colorado new Golden, Colorado 2015 new Basalt, Colorado

3 U.S. buildings energy-saving potential,

4 Whole-system design Typical analysis for a 1,208-m 2 Denver office Energy Measure Incremental Payback Cost Savings Period (yrs) Daylighting $4,900 $1, Glazing $5,520 $1, Energy Efficient Lighting $1,400 $ Energy Efficient HVAC $3,880 $ HVAC Controls $2,900 $ Shading $4,800 $ Economizer Cycle $1,200 $ Insulation $1,600 $ so each improvement by itself is too expensive for a cash-short developer.}+$26,200

5 Whole-system design Typical analysis for a 1,208-m 2 Denver office Energy Measure Incremental Cost Daylighting $4,900 Glazing $5,520 Energy Efficient Lighting $1,400 Energy Efficient HVAC $3,880 HVAC Controls $2,900 Shading $4,800 Economizer Cycle $1,200 Insulation $1,600 Fewer E & W Windows -$4,160 Small & Different HVAC -$17,700 Total Cost $4,340 }+$26,200...so all improvements together yield about a one-year simple payback, thanks to their interactions. } net cost +$4,350 saving ~$4,500/y $21,860 payback ~1 y

6 Multiple benefits from single expenditures Save energy and capital costs throughout the design 10 benefits from superwindows 18 from efficient motors and dimming ballasts My home s central arch has 12 functions but only one cost Grand Forks (ND) office Incremental costs Windows $67,500 Daylighting $18,000 Insulation $17,200 Lighting $21,000 HVAC $160,000 Total $36,300 Energy savings: $75,000/year Greg Franta FAIA, deceased Team Leader, RMI/ENSAR Built Environment

7 80% energy savings in Hyderabad office, lower capex Infosys DSB1 (2009): world s largest side-by-side HVAC experiment Radiant side (11,152 m 2 ): 66 kwh/m 2 -y ( 80%), capex 9% Courtesy of Peter Rumsey PE FASHRAE (Senior Advisor, RMI) and Rohan Parikh (Infosys, Bangalore)

8 Integrative Design in Retrofitting the Empire State Building

9 ESB Approach $8.7M $2.4M Minus $17.4 $5.6M $2.7M $4.4M Annual Savings $4M Windows Radiative Barrier DDC Controls VAV AHUs Lighting & Plugs Avoided Chiller Plant Retrofit

10 2 18,606-m 1974 Chicago curtainwall office tower: a 1994 retrofit design Oak Brook Regency Tower West, 1515 W. 22nd St., Oak Brook, Illinois /07/OBRTExterior1.jpg

11 18,606-m Chicago curtainwall office tower: a 1994 retrofit design 76% calculated energy saving $/m 2 approx. marginal investment months payback (typical)

12 Similar results in a Japanese office, without superwindows Rohm head office, Kyōto 44% energy saving by retrofit 2-year payback Courtesy of Yanase Masaake-san via Iida Tetsunaru-san

13 Lovins House, Old Snowmass, Colorado 2200 m elevation, 1984 lowest temperature 44 C up to 39 days of continuous winter cloud 2015 image by Mike Bouchet

14 crops # : 99% saved space and water heating energy 90% saved electricity 10 month payback

15 1996, Bangkok: 84% 99% saved air-conditioning capacity 90% 90% ~0 saved air-conditioning energy month payback

16 Five principles of integrative building design Optimize the whole building as a system, for multiple benefits not isolated components for single benefits Use radical (not incremental) efficiency to shrink or eliminate HVAC, whose saved capital then buys the efficiency Start saving downstream (minimize loads, hence flows, hence friction, hence pump/ fan sizing and friction, hence motors and inverters, hence electrical supplies...) Do the right steps, in the right order, at the right time Count cost by the building, not by the component: the key to big buildings that cost less to build and to operate is to use expensive windows! See:

17 Retrofitted Low-Friction Piping Layout

18 100% 100% Piping Layout Choices Avoiding 90 bends 99% 1% 99% 1%

19 Traditional Chilled Water Plant Design Redesign for Efficiency return from tower to chiller return from tower

20 100 Energy units -70 % -9 % -12 % -55 % -20 % Power Plant Power Grid Motor/Drivetrain Pump/Throttle Pipe 10 % Delivered flow

21 50 Energy units -70 % -9 % -12 % -55 % -20 % Power Plant Power Grid Motor/Drivetrain Pump/Throttle Pipe 5 % Delivered flow

22 The right steps in the right order: space cooling 0. Cool the people, not the building

23 The right steps in the right order: space cooling 0. Cool the people, not the building 1.Expand comfort envelope 01! Airspeed! 05! Humidity! 02! Air temp! 06! Clothing! level! 04! Activity level! 03! Surface! temp!

24 The right steps in the right order: space cooling 0. Cool the people, not the building 1.Expand comfort envelope 2.Minimize unwanted heat gains 3.Passive cooling 4.Active nonrefrigerative cooling 5.Superefficient refrigerative cooling 6.Coolth storage and controls Result: ~90 100% less energy, more comfort, lower capex, higher uptime

25 Superefficient big refrigerative HVAC too ( m 2 water-cooled centrifugal, Singapore, turbulent induction air delivery but underfloor displacement could save even more energy) Element Std kw/t Best kw/t How to do it (COP) (COP) Supply fan Best vaneaxial, ~ kpa TSH (less w/ufdv), VAV ChWP kpa head, efficient pump/motor, no pri/sec Chiller Cº approaches, optimal impeller speed CWP kpa head, efficient pump/motor CT Big fill area, big slow fan at variable speed TOTAL 1.75 (COP 2.01) COP 5.98, 3 better) Best Singapore practice w/dual ChW temp.: 0.52 total kw/t including 0.41 chiller, COP 6.8 Better comfort, lower capital cost

26 Low-face-velocity, high-coolant-velocity coils Correct a 1921 mistake about how coils work Flow is laminar and condensation is dropwise, so turn the coil around sideways, run at <1 m/s (<200 fpm): 29% better dehumidification, P 95%; smaller chiller, fan, and parasitic loads

27 Benchmarking a big new office (~10,000+ m 2, semitropical climate, no PVs; Japanese comparables; ,452-m 2 RMI Innovation Center target) standard US better best practice site MJ/m 2 -y 1,100/1, / /293/ el. kwh/m 2 -y 270/ / /81/44 54 lighting W/m 2 as-used 16 24/ /2/1 plug W/m 2 as-used 50 90/ glazing W/m 2 K center-of-glass < /0.43 glazing T vis /SC >2.0 perimeter heating extensive medium none/none roof α, ε 0.8, , , 0.97/PV m 2 /kw th cooling / cooling syst. COP /none relative cap. cost /~1? relative space eff /1.01 Japan standard: median of 40 buildings, Energy Conservation Center of Japan; better: average of six SHASEJ Junen Award-winning buildings; best: the most efficient of those six buildings (Nissei Yokkaichi Building); data courtesy of Urabe-san, CRIEPI, via Asano-sensei, Todai; 2 W/m 2 lighting is Shimizu Building 2012

28 Obstacles and opportunities Fragmented value chain: ~24 parties, with different goals and metrics, each systematically rewarded for inefficiency and penalized for efficiency* Management inattention, missing or perverse internal incentives, hence low priority Lack of understanding of what integrative design can do and how to do it Rarity of accurate, granular operating data presented graphically, clearly, and vividly Non-energy forms of value often worth ~10 100x more but not monetized^ Misaligned practices by appraisers, brokers, and other important agents Limited understanding and support by financiers Rewarding design professionals for what they spend, not what they save# Lack of software tools that coach integrative design for superior outcomes Lack of some hardware (such as advanced tuned superwindows in Japan) * ^ Documents/Value%20Beyond%20Cost%20Savings--Final.pdf #