phoenix convention center phoenix, arizona integration of master planning, energy planning, and...

Phoenix Convention Center • Phoenix, Arizona

Integration of Master Planning, Energy Planning, and Energy Data

Track 2: Agency Energy Manager

[Session 6: Campus Approach to Energy Management]

Michael Case, Ph.D.U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center

August 12, 2015

Energy Exchange: Federal Sustainability for the Next Decade2

Think Beyond the Building

MasterPlanning

EnergyPlanning

O & M Metering

?(CAMPS)

(CAMPS)

(Net Zero Planner)

Don’t make short term decisions without a long term plan

Energy Exchange: Federal Sustainability for the Next Decade

Master Planning ProcessDevelop Vision Plan

Vision and Developable Area Map

FrameworkPlan

Summary FutureDevelopment Plan

Prepare Installation Development Plan

Area Development Plan (ADP) 1 ADP 2 ADP 3 ADP 4…

Installation Network Plans

Prepare Installation Planning Standards

Building Stds Street Stds Landscape Stds

Document Development Plans

Analysis of Requirements Project Lists

Complete Plan Summary


• Integrated Plan• Projects• Sequence• Schedule• Costs• Risk•DD1391

Energy Planning Process

2 Establish

Baseline & Base Case

5Produce

Integrated Plan

• Building • Geography• Utilities• Cost Data• Water• Waste• Greenhouse Gas

Supp

orts

Execute, Track, Measure

1 Establish Planning

Goals

3Optimize

EnergyEfficiency

4Optimize

Supply and Distribution System Mix

Iterate over Building

Measures

Focus for Campus Approach


Area Development Plan

A typical Area Development Plan (ADP)Illustrative Plan


Sustainability Component Plan - SCP• New concept introduced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers• Assesses the sustainability of an Area Development Plan with

respect to energy, water, solid waste, and Stormwater• Example case studies using Net Zero Planner (NZP) and

Comprehensive Asset Master Planning Solution (CAMPS)• Winner of APA – FPD 2014 Best Sustainable Planning Project


Goals, Baseline, Base Case, and Alternatives

• Goals – Metrics that guide the analysis of alternatives. Net Zero Energy, Site Energy, Source Energy, Renewables, etc.

• Baseline – A synthetic “typical” year. May be derived from several years representative of one or two years energy use.

• Base Case – A projection of future usage given “business as usual” policies. – Plan horizon (typically 25-40 years)– Planned construction– Planned demolition– Building renovation, consolidation, and mission change.

• Alternatives – Better Case – reduce energy demand on buildings using cost effective EEMS

that meet mission requirements (goals)– Best Case – reduce total energy usage further using supply and distribution

strategies (cogeneration, solar, wind, storage, etc.)– Many more alternatives may (and should) be explored.


CAMPS Facility Interface - New

CAMPS has been modified to add facilities to facility modeling groups and send energy consumption data (not shown) to Net Zero Planner


NZP Building, Supply & Distribution, Optimization

9

EnergyPlus simulations provide performance data for Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs)

Mixed Integer Linear Programming Optimization finds lowest cost mix of renewables, grid-supply, and CHP


Displaying the Base Case in CAMPS

• Base Case assumes “business as usual”

• Community energy planning tools support better prediction of future performance

• Graphics illustrate which facilities are not meeting energy budgets

• Facilities modeled by Facility Groups


Better Case

• “Better” case looks at most likely penetration of cost-effective EEMS

• Takes into account deep retrofits of fraction of buildings

• Buildings-only strategy does not quite achieve goals


Best Case

• Best case represents more aggressive measures

• Adds renewables, storage, distribution, cogeneration as applicable

• Almost all buildings meet energy budget necessary to achieve installation goals


Renewable Planning

• Planning to energy budget allows trade-offs

• Reduction of building loads greatly reduces required area for solar photovoltaic panels

* Note: Area shown is collector area calculated from PV Watts, not land area required to site the arrays.


How much energy is REALLY being used?Site vs. Source energy - example


Site vs. Source Energy - with cogen


Net Zero Planner Integrated Modeling Approach

Energy SimulationWater Simulation Waste Simulation-Process Water usage and simulate the baseline and the water Efficiency Measures using Best Practices for each Facility Type.-Pass domestic hot water usage numbers to the energy simulation-Pass usage data to the optimization and inputs to Integrated Simulator

-Receive DHW usage from the water simulation as input.-Do EnergyPlus simulation for each Facility Type.-Pass HVAC water usage and condensate recovery values to the water module.-Pass energy demands to optimization and energy inputs to the waste module

DHW data

HVAC water usage

Energy demands-Receive Energy demands to look at best practices waste to energy possibilities-Do waste simulation-Pass waste outputs to the NZI-Opt module.

-Process Energy, Water, and Waste inputs and determine cluster/installation scale MILP optimized configuration of generation and renewable supply equipment, etc.-Pass outputs for a single loop feedback to modules if necessary, and/or process and pass inputs to Integrated Simulation.

Single feedback loop if necessary

Loos

ely

Coup

led

MIL

P

Clos

ely

Coup

led


West Point USMA

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Pilot DOD Installations

Waterways ExperimentStation

Fort Leonard Wood

17

Fort Hunter Liggett

ESTCP

ESTCP

Upcoming: Fort Hood, JBPHH, Fort Bliss

• Schofield Barracks• Fort Hood• Presidio at Monterey• Johnson Space Center• Parks RFTA• Lakenheath AFB (future)


Energy and Sustainability Goals

18UNCLASSIFIED - FOUO

[1]

Parameter 2040Base Case

2040Target

Comments

Energy Efficiency % Reference 40% “Forty by Forty”

Source Energy Use 360,740 MWh 216,444 MWh Based on Base Case

Site Energy Use 300,400 MWh Derived Depends on Scenario

GHG Reduction % Reference 100% Net Zero

Scope 1 & 2 Emissions 63,800 mt Net Zero

Energy Economics Gov’t Analysis Life Cycle Cost Effective

Internal Rate of Return NA 5% Calculated over plan period

Energy Security Acceptable No Change “Security and Efficiency”

Quality, reliability, resilience NA No change Thermal and electricEqual or better than baseline


All Army Installations in system, with weather (Some Navy, Air Force as well)

19

20

Adding Facilities is Easy

Building types

Baseline, Basecase, and

alternativesMap Viewers and

building lists


Uses Readily Available GIS information

21

Import from GIS or draw in


Compare “as-is” to future scenarios

22

Present Day2013

Planned2035


Building Level Reports

23

Compare baseline and all alternatives

Most commonly used reports and

graphics for analysis of buildings


Installation Optimization Process1. Integrate all building energy demands

2. Use energy density to identify possible clusters

3. Determine potential cluster equipment packages for installations and region

4. Generate alternative equipment configurations, including centralized and decentralized options

5. Optimize equipment size and pipe sizes• Electric, thermal, hydraulic, economic simulations

6. Calculate SIRcluster & EEMs

vs.vs. OneCentral Plant

• CHP• Biodigester• Boiler

• PVs• Solar HW• Wind

Two District Plants

Distributed Generation

vs.vs.

NortheastSouthwestPackage

Midwest

=


Installation-wide Analysis: Clusters

25


Cluster Results

26


Final Analysis of Alternatives (with Life Cycle Costs)

27

SI Units NZP Energy (MWh/yr)

Scenarios

Total Fossil Fuel + Biomass Fuel

Total Electricity

Total Site Energy

Total Source Energy

% Source Energy

Reduction from

Baseline Investment $

Life Cycle Cost (Disc Rate =

3%)

Simple Paybac

k Yrs Baseline 258,810 23,228 282,038 348,550 0% Basecase 259,424 31,020 290,444 375,219 -8% $477,361,000 District Steam 196,254 14,488 210,742 253,866 27% $155,220,000 $460,051,000 25 District Hot Water 188,011 16,189 204,200 250,916 28% $144,570,000 $435,313,000 21 Decentralized 45,564 78,232 123,796 308,998 11% $141,240,000 $467,827,000 27 Net Zero Fossil Fuel

2,828 /303,132 2,297 307,957 40,628 88% $193,155,480 $562,650,000

* See Note

• Decisions matrix• Alternatives vs decision criteria• Energy use (source and site• Life Cycle Cost


• Uses quantitative data from NZP models

• Qualitative data can be used (e.g. - stakeholder opinions)

• Sensitivity analysis can be conducted on importance of different metrics.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis


• Campus-wide Energy Management requires processes and tools that help the planner to think beyond the individual building

• Master Planning, Energy Planning, and Energy Data come together in the Sustainability Component Plan

• Don’t make short-term decisions without a long term plan

Conclusions


•Questions?

Phoenix Convention Center • Phoenix, Arizona 31

Backup Slides


Energy and Climate Change

• 495 Buildings Modeled in Net Zero Planner• Weather files adjusted for +3˚C and +6 ˚C

scenarios w/ relative humidity constant• Heating loads decrease and cooling loads

increase.• Site energy decreases 3.5% and 4.6%

respectively, compared to today• Source energy increases 2.4% and 6.5%, due

to shift from natural gas to electricity, assuming no cogeneration

• Overall energy COST increases 2.3% and 6.2%• Caveat: analysis did not assess likelihood of

increase in temperature, just impact

32

Standard Building Models


Simulation Results (preliminary)

Elec ($/kWh): 0.09NG ($/therm): 0.86

ScenarioSite Total

(kBtu)Site Electricity

(kBtu)Site Gas (kBtu)

Site Elec Cost ($)

Site Gas Cost ($)

Site Total Cost ($)

No Change 790,226,861 460,695,165 329,531,696 $12,151,478 $2,832,076 $14,983,554Plus 3˚ C 762,742,656 493,227,322 269,515,334 $13,009,559 $2,316,281 $15,325,840Plus 6˚ C 754,053,560 530,566,067 223,487,493 $13,994,421 $1,920,706 $15,915,127


Site versus Source Energy*

ScenarioSource Total

(kBtu)

Source Electricity

(kBtu)Source Gas

(kBtu)Energy

Change (%)No Change1,883,741,536 1,538,721,850 345,019,686 0.00%Plus 3˚ C 1,929,561,809 1,647,379,254 282,182,555 2.43%Plus 6˚ C 2,006,082,069 1,772,090,664 233,991,405 6.49%

Elec site/source multiplier: 3.43

NG site/source multiplier: 1.047

* Assumes electricity and natural gas purchased from grid, no co-generation


Electricity and Natural Gas

phoenix convention center phoenix, arizona integration of master planning, energy planning, and...

Documents

federal sustainability

energy demand

site energy

source energy

energy datatrack

energy managementmichael

net zero energy

energy consumption data