led lighting & geothermal hvac - architect …...2015/11/19  · microsoft powerpoint - led...

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