Morofsky 1 Low-energy Building Design, Economics and the Role of Energy Storage Canadian possibilities based on the Model National Energy Code for Buildings
21
Embed
Morofsky1 Low-energy Building Design, Economics and the Role of Energy Storage Canadian possibilities based on the Model National Energy Code for Buildings.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Slide 1
Morofsky1 Low-energy Building Design, Economics and the Role of
Energy Storage Canadian possibilities based on the Model National
Energy Code for Buildings
Slide 2
Morofsky2 Model National Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB) 1997
The MNECB is a model code that can be adopted (or adapted) by any
province or territory in Canada. The MNECB references Canadian
standards and regulations and uses metric (SI) units.
Cost-effectiveness of the provisions was guiding principle of the
MNECB. Country was divided into 34 administrative regions because
of variation of construction and energy costs and climate.
Life-cycle cost process applied in each region.
Slide 3
Morofsky3 Model National Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB) 1997
Provisions of MNECB are more stringent in colder regions and for
buildings heated by more expensive fuels. Two paths to compliance -
prescriptive and performance. Prescriptive - meet all mandatory and
prescriptive requirements - easiest path to follow for compliance.
Performance - involves detailed computer simulation - most
flexible, but most complex path. Building does not have to meet
some prescriptive requirements of Code but must not use more energy
than prescriptive path.
Slide 4
Morofsky4 Individual measures with energy and cost comparisons
to the base case.
Slide 5
Morofsky5 Measure set definitions: SA,..., SM
Slide 6
Morofsky6 Introduction Investigate the potential energy
efficiency of office buildings from the appropriate application of
available technologies. Objective - dramatically reduce whole
building energy compared to a building constructed to Canadas Model
National Energy Code for Buildings 1997 (MNECB). Results of
modeling efforts to-date on a small office building and how energy
efficiency technologies can minimize energy use in office buildings
in Canada. Heating and cooling load requirements for low energy
office buildings in Canada and implications for energy
storage.
Slide 7
Morofsky7 Two sustainable development departmental
objectives
Morofsky11 Energy Criteria - Low-rise Office (MNECB) - Ottawa
(4200 m 2 ) Infiltration- 0.25 l/s/m 2 exterior wall Outdoor air-
0.4 l/s/m 2 floor area HVAC system- Individual zone packaged
rooftop - DX air cooled (EER-8.9) with economizer - Gas-fired
central boiler SHW system- Peak demand 90 W per person - Electric
storage heaters
Slide 12
Morofsky12 Energy Use - Low-rise Office (MNECB) - Ottawa (4200
m 2 ) End Use kWh GJ % Total Heating 36,8443,099 61.2 Cooling
66,435 - 4.5 SHW 53,288 - 3.6 Lights217,863 -14.9
Equip/Appliances117,037 - 8.0 Fans 63,372 - 4.3 Pumps 8,297 - 0.6
Elevators 41,808 - 2.9 Total604,9443,099 100% Total (ekWh)
1,465,935 100% Building Peak 303 kW1,260 MJ / m2
Slide 13
Morofsky13 Example Path to Low Energy Use End UseMeasures
Heating/Cooling- increase wall insulation ( RSI 0.9) - use argon,
low-e, vinyl frame windows (U overall = 1.86) - ground-source heat
pump system (EER-15.5, COP-3.4) SHW- low-flow faucets in washrooms
(6.8 lpm) Lights- reduce lighting to 10.8 W/m 2
Slide 14
Morofsky14 Energy Use - Low-rise Office Example Low Energy End
Use kWh GJ % Total % Change Heating 102,39216.1-88 Cooling 40,017
6.3-40 SHW 42,460 6.7-20 Lights 132,03020.7-39 Equipment /
Appliances 117,03718.4 - Fans 110,69117.4+75 Pumps 50,643 7.9+510
Elevators 41,808 6.5 - Total 637,078100% Total (ekWh) 637,078100% -
56.5 % Building Peak205 kW546 MJ / m2
Slide 15
Morofsky15 Result of Applications of Measures The heating and
cooling energy use has been reduced by 85% as a result of load
reduction due to improved envelope and the efficiency of the heat
pump. The service water heating energy use has been reduced by 20%
as a result of the load reduction (less hot water use). Lighting
energy use is down by 39% as a result of the lighting density
change.
Slide 16
Morofsky16 Result of Applications of Measures (contd) Fan and
pump energy use is up significantly with the ground-source heat
pump system. Net result - 56.5% saving relative to the MNECB base
case.
Slide 17
Morofsky17 GSHP Requirements Land requirement for a 100-meter
vertical system is about 550 m2 less than the 32-meter square foot
print if the building has four storeys. A typical cost might be
$130,000. Note that the energy extracted and added to the ground
exchanger is similar at 284 MWh heating and 202 MWh cooling.
Slide 18
Morofsky18 Further Steps to Lower Energy Use Heat / Cool -
solar shading - displacement ventilation with HR - solar wall
(ventilation pre-heat) - demand ventilation (CO 2 control) SHW-
solar thermal heating Lighting- perimeter daylighting with
automatic dimming - occupancy sensors
Slide 19
Morofsky19 Further Steps to Lower Energy Use Equipment
/Appliances - office equipment-low idle power use / smart controls
Fans / Pumps- energy efficient fans / pumps / motors - variable
speed pumps Elevators- efficiency measures for elevators Power-
microturbine with heat recovery - photovoltaics
Slide 20
Morofsky20 GSHP Conclusions Office building energy use can be
significantly reduced in new building design compared to the MNECB.
The example presented was 56%. More opportunities exist to reduce
heating load (heat recovery), further improve lighting and
incorporate on-site power production /cogeneration. Ground-source
heat pump system heat exchanger layout fits within footprint of
building.
Slide 21
Morofsky21 Energy savings over 50% were achieved in five
measure sets (SG, SJ, SK, SL, SM) and four had discounted payback
periods between 2.5 and 6 years. 25% reductions compared to the
base case building with no incremental cost (SE, SF, SH, SI).
Designs can result in energy savings of 30 to 40% with no
incremental cost. The integrated design process process has been
successfully applied where the energy reductions have confirmed
simulation results. Existing buildings represent a much larger
opportunity than new buildings. Many measures would be applicable
when major system upgrades, replacements or building retrofits are
undertaken. Even pre-mature retrofits could be justified on a life
cycle cost basis. General Conclusions