summer research papr

1

Energy Analysis and Sustainable Solutions for a Distribution Warehouse

Faculty Advisors – Dr. Joe Marriott and Dr. Melissa Bilec

July 31, 2009 Revised September 1, 2009

Matt Kaminski University of Pittsburgh College of Engineering [email protected]

Kathleen KesslerUniversity of Pittsburgh College of Engineering

[email protected]

Abigayle SterleCornell University

College of Engineering [email protected]

2

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 7 General Operations ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Physical Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Energy Usage ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

ENERGY AUDIT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Electricity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Natural Gas ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Electricity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Natural Gas ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13

IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Electricity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Natural Gas ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Results: Electric ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 Results: Natural Gas .................................................................................................................................................... 19

OFFICE MODIFICATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Investment Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 26 Performance Based Improvements and Additional Recommendations ............................................... 27

INNOVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Fuel Cell Forklift ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Cool/Reflective Roof ................................................................................................................................................... 28 Solar Panel Integration .............................................................................................................................................. 29

3

High Volume, Low Speed Industrial Fans .......................................................................................................... 29 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 WORKS CITED ......................................................................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix D .......................................................................................................................................................................... 39

4

Energy Analysis and Sustainable Solutions for a Large Distribution Warehouse Matthew Kaminski, Kathleen Kessler and Abigayle Sterle Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation University of Pittsburgh

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapman Properties, owners of the Leetsdale Industrial Park, requested an energy analysis of this warehouse. The motivation behind this request was to identify where changes and retrofits could be implemented within the building to save on both monetary expenditures and energy consumption. The company would like to market themselves as both a more cost‐effective and sustainable alternative to other developers, and in learning about these changes, would have the resources to begin their transformation. This research paper details the sustainable suggestions for a large distribution warehouse, which consists of both warehouse and office space. To begin, a thorough energy analysis of the building was completed. After walking through the building and taking inventory of all of the specifications from both the tour and an examination of the blueprints, the electric and natural gas utility bills for 2007 and 2008 were analyzed. This analysis was utilized to see where energy was being consumed so that wastes could be identified. 63% of the building’s energy costs were due to electric consumption, while 37% were from natural gas. These results came from the 2008 utility bills, which served as the basis for all analyses. 58% of the building’s entire electricity demand came from lighting the warehouse and office space, and the 12 forklifts in the warehouse accounted for 25% of the building’s electricity demand. After the building’s current electricity consumption was evaluated, the building was modeled through the U.S. Department of Energy’s ENERGY‐10 program to get an accurate baseline model. The program also provided a similarly detailed low‐energy case as a suggestion for improvements. This case served as a reference for all of the suggested changes in this project. We categorize updates as either improvements or innovations. The improvements were given this title because they were determined to be the most easily implemented suggestions. Under this category, electricity consumption was analyzed by examining the lighting and fan systems to see what changes could be made to make the systems more efficient. For the natural gas analysis, ENERGY‐10 was used to change the roof and wall insulation, the number, size and type of windows, overhangs and the HVAC system. These sustainable retrofits were used to determine the maximum amount of energy savings. The suggested improvements found to have a payback period (pbp) less than fifteen years were as follows:

• Set point temperature of warehouse thermostats to 50°F (0 years) • Office Thermostat setup 76°F & setback 67 °F (0 years) • Adding Smart Power Strips to the office (0.1 years) • Installing programmable thermostats in the warehouse with 5°F setback (0.8 years) • Install occupancy sensors to current warehouse lights (1.3 years) • Replace current warehouse lights with high bay T5HO fluorescent fixtures & occupancy sensors (4.3 years) • Replace current radiant heat with direct gas‐fired heaters (4.6 years @ 40% efficiency/12.2 years @ 15%) • Add dimming/occupancy sensors to the office (4.7 years) • Replace current warehouse lights with high bay T5HO fluorescent fixtures (6.8 years) • Replace current warehouse lights with high bay T8 fluorescent fixtures & occupancy sensors (6.8 years) • Replace exhaust fans with more efficient versions and/or regular maintenance of these fans (7 years) • Adding fiberglass insulation to upper walls (11+ years, depending on R‐value) • Replace current warehouse lights with high bay T8 fluorescent fixtures (14 years)

5

Finally, a group of innovative ideas were discussed. Due to the high upfront costs and reliability issues of these ideas, it was determined that they were better suited for future warehouse construction. Also, a selection of case studies involving the constructions of green warehouses in the United States was included in the appendix section. These studies would also be useful when considering options for future warehouse constructions.

6

INTRODUCTION The work described in this report was performed by undergraduate research students under the direction of the Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation at the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This report identifies the benefits provided by increased energy efficiency in a specific warehouse. These recommendations were based upon observations, measurements and evaluations made specifically for an identified warehouse. The objective of this research project is to identify and evaluate the current energy consumption of a distribution facility in Leetsdale Industrial Park. In doing so, recommendations can be made about the most significant opportunities to conserve energy, lower operating costs and strengthen the “green” marketability of this specific warehouse and others owned and managed by Chapman Properties. BACKGROUND In the United States, buildings account for 39% of the country’s total energy consumption, 72% of electricity, 14% of that of potable water and consume 40% of its raw materials. Buildings are also responsible for 38% of all carbon dioxide emissions and 30% of the country’s waste output (1). Unfortunately, of all federally funded research from 2002 to 2004, only 0.2% was spent to research green building practices and technologies. This funding is miniscule compared to environmental and economic impact that the building industry has in the United States (2). However, as the benefits of sustainable building design become increasingly acknowledged and accepted by the researchers, policy makers, and the general public, commercial developers have begun to see the need for an increase in efficiency and sustainability in their buildings. The need for energy conservation in commercial buildings is significant. Of the green building research that is being conducted, the majority is spent exploring office space improvements which have allowed commercial storage and distribution spaces to trail behind in efficiency practices. In 2006, commercial buildings were responsible for 18% of all energy consumed in the United States (3). In particular, warehouses are currently responsible for 7% of all commercial building energy consumption (4). Common areas of warehouse energy loss include air infiltration through loading docks, inefficient lighting, poorly insulated roofs and windows, lower thermal resistance values of walls and lighting in unoccupied areas. Some of the benefits associated with a more sustainable building design are the improvements of both air and water quality, employee productivity, comfort and health, the conservation of natural resources and perhaps most notably, the reduction in operating costs (1). As the cost of energy continues to rise, property owners and tenants are becoming increasingly interested in investing in sustainable design and construction. Chapman Properties, founded in 1982, owns the warehouse analyzed in this report. This Pittsburgh‐based commercial developer has operations in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York and California, and presently employs twenty experts in construction management, marketing, finance and property management (5). They maintain the highest standards of ethics in their business practices; thus, they have taken an interest in “greening” their current commercial properties. If implemented, the sustainable changes suggested here will help the company to demonstrate active leadership in the property management industry while simultaneously reducing the operational costs for facility occupants who lease the space. This research deals specifically with one of their warehouses located in the Leetsdale Industrial Park in Leetsdale, Pennsylvania. The Leetsdale Industrial Park is located approximately fifteen miles northwest of Pittsburgh. The 126 acre park is bordered by the Ohio River and its developments include distribution, office, light manufacturing, and industrial crane spaces (Figure 1). The riverfront business environment attracts internationally recognized companies including Air Products and Chemicals, FedEx, Shell Lubricants and Almatis Inc. (Alcoa) (5) (6). Chapman Properties recently acquired new land near the Pittsburgh Airport where it will oversee the construction of new energy efficient warehouse storage, light manufacturing and office spaces.

7

Figure 1. Map of Leetsdale Industrial Park. (6)

FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONS Table 1 contains a description of the distribution facility in Leetsdale, Pennsylvania.

Table 1. Description of Distribution Facility. Building Description

Area 124,162 sq ft (warehouse = 119,215 sq ft, office = 4947 sq ft) Height of Building 30 ft at roof line, 42 feet at center Lower Walls of Warehouse

6 ft height, 8 inch split‐faced concrete masonry w/rigid board insulation, R‐7

Upper Walls of Warehouse

24‐36 ft height, 6 inch smooth‐faced concrete block with 4 inch insulated metal wall panels, R‐13

Roof 16.7 degree pitch from edge to center of building, metal roof with 6 inch fiberglass batt insulation, R‐19

Floor Concrete slab Warehouse Windows 11,548 sq ft of translucent panels facing the West Loading Area 15 loading dock doors and 1 truck ramp Office Space 11 office rooms, one large conference room, gender specific

locker rooms and restrooms, one driver’s lounge Office Windows 530 sq ft double glazed, low‐e windows on the northern face

and 550 sq ft on western face Appliances 130 overhead lights, seven computers, three printers, one

fax/copy machine

8

General Operations The warehouse evaluated in this report is owned by Chapman Properties and is currently being leased for the distribution of oil barrels and packaged fuels, see Figure 2. Sixteen employees are involved in the operation. The employees work year round, Monday through Friday, from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Some employees work past 4:30 PM and others work on Saturday mornings. On average, twelve employees work in the warehouse during business hours and the remaining people work in the office space that is enclosed within the main building.

Figure 2. (Left) Looking down aisle of warehouse space; (Right) Drums of oil stored in high‐bay ceiling warehouse

Physical Description 96% of the area of the building is used as a warehouse, while the remaining 4% contains the office, lying in the northwest corner. A basic layout of the facility is shown in Figure 3. The western face of the storage space features a truck docking area with sixteen dock doors and two ramps.

Figure 3. Layout of distribution facility in Leetsdale Industrial Park (7)

The building walls contains two types of materials:, the first 6 ft are made of 8 in split‐faced concrete masonry, while the remaining 36 ft consist of 6 in smooth‐faced concrete block with insulated metal wall panels. The edges of the building stand at 30 ft and the metal, clerestory roof has a 16.7 degree pitch. There are translucent panels running both parallel to the western face and the side with the dock doors. The storage space floor is made of concrete slab. The building’s insulation varies depending on its location within the building. 6 in fiberglass batting insulates the roof to give it an overall R‐value of 19. An R‐value indicates an insulation’s resistance to heat flow, where a higher R‐value offers a more effective insulation. The concrete masonry units that comprise the first 6 ft of the wall structures are filled with rigid board insulation, allowing this section of wall to achieve R‐7. The wall sections above the concrete masonry have

9

fiberglass batt insulation, making these walls R‐13. The current fiberglass insulation, although inexpensively purchased and easily installed, is more susceptible to air convection than spray foam insulation, and generally consists of only 15% recycled content. The office consists of eleven office spaces, gender specific locker rooms and restrooms, a conference room and a driver’s lounge (Figure 4). Each office space is located along the perimeter of the building, exposed to daylight and equipped with a personal computer. Three printers and one fax/copy machine are located in the middle of the space and the lunch/conference room contains a small kitchen with a refrigerator. There are double glazed, low‐e windows on the northern and western faces of the office. Finally, approximately 130 overhead light bulbs illuminate the 5,000 sq ft office space.

Figure 4. Inside conference room of office space

Energy Usage

Electricity is required for lighting, office space cooling, the operation of fans and louvers, forklifts, dock levelers, shrink‐wrap equipment in the warehouse and traditional office necessities in the office space. The twelve electric forklifts are used to move oil drums and shipment orders around the warehouse and into delivery trucks. The forklifts are charged for eight hours overnight on every weekday. Natural gas is required for the radiant heaters in the building and for heating hot water for the office space. The primary source of lighting for the warehouse consists of 241 High Intensity Discharge (HID) 400‐watt metal halide light fixtures. The high‐bay fixtures are relatively energy efficient in that they have a long life and are able to illuminate a large area with a minimal amount of fixtures. The energy efficiency of a light is generally determined by the ratio of its lumen output to the number of watts needed to generate that output; the efficiency of the current light fixtures is 85% (8). Negative features of the high‐bay lights include that they require several minutes to turn on and have shown poor color consistency over their lifetime. In addition, the metal halide light fixtures experience a 20‐35% drop in light output at 40% of their rated life (9). The fixtures in the warehouse space are strategically located over the isles so as to not illuminate unnecessary space. Gas‐fired unit heaters supply infrared radiant heat throughout the storage area of the warehouse. The radiant heaters are mounted approximately 22 ft from the floor. The floor and oil drums, which act as the warehouse’s thermal mass (bodies that store heat), absorb the infrared radiant heat energy and heat the air in the space. The thermal masses continue to radiate heat even when the radiant heaters are turned off. Thermostats in all areas of the storage space are maintained at 56°F, while those in the office area are kept at 70°F for heating and 74°F for cooling. The warehouse space is not mechanically cooled, but fourteen exhaust fans with twelve adjacent fan louvers aid with air circulation and space cooling during the warmer months.

10

ENERGY AUDIT

Methods An energy audit was performed to find a baseline value for the building’s current energy consumption. The building’s energy consumption was analyzed in two areas: electric and natural gas. First, using the blueprints of the building supplied by Chapman Properties, a thorough inventory of the building was taken. The number and specific types of lights, windows, doors, heaters, wall and roof insulation and flooring were recorded along with all of the building’s dimensions. The building’s operation schedule, thermostat settings and specific quantities and types of miscellaneous equipment used in the warehouse and office spaces were noted. These components were then analyzed according to their effect on the building’s net energy consumption. Electricity The building’s electricity consumption was determined with two methods used as a check on one another. First, the building’s monthly electricity bills from 2007 and 2008 were acquired and the monthly consumption and costs were organized (Appendix A) (10). The values printed on the bills served as the “actual” electricity consumption of the entire building. Second, the electricity consumption was calculated as the summation of the individual consumption of the major electrical devices in the warehouse and office. This calculated consumption served as the modeled electric consumption. To begin, the voltage, amperage, and/or wattage and operation schedule of the major electric devices in the warehouse and office spaces were recorded. The major electric devices included lighting, office air conditioning, warehouse fans, dock levelers, forklifts, shrink wrappers, computers, fax machines, copiers, printers and a refrigerator. If the wattage, or power, of a device was not listed, it was calculated using a variation of Ohm’s Law which states that power is equal to the current in the device multiplied by its voltage. Next, the wattage was multiplied by the number of hours per day that the device was in use. When multiplied by the expected number of days that the device would be used each month, a value for monthly electrical consumption in kilowatt‐hours per month was determined. This process was repeated for each electrical device in the warehouse and office, and the monthly values were summed to yield the modeled electric consumption. The annual modeled consumption value was compared to the actual yearly kilowatt‐hour value taken from the utility bills, and the electric portion of the energy audit was evaluated and analyzed. Electricity Operation Assumptions The lights in the warehouse and office were assumed to operate for nine hours a day, five days a week. Outdoor lights were assumed to operate fifteen hours a day, seven days a week. Lastly, security lights were assumed to operate continuously. There are fourteen exhaust fans and twelve dampers in the warehouse that turn on when the temperature inside the warehouse surpasses 80°F. Using Pittsburgh weather data, an estimate of the number of days per month of needed fan operation was determined. Based on the average summer temperatures, the exhaust fans and dampers were assumed to operate for ten days in May, twenty‐two days in June and July and fifteen days in August. There are three shrink‐wrap machines that were assumed to run eight times per hour for eight hours a day, Monday through Friday. Twelve forklifts were assumed to charge for eight hours during the evening, Monday through Friday. The fourteen dock levelers were assumed to each operate two minutes per day, Monday through Friday. Wattages of computers, fax/copy machines, printers, air conditioning units and refrigerators were determined using EnergyStar data for average appliance output.

11

Natural Gas The natural gas consumption was determined using two methods. First, as with the electric consumption, the monthly and annual natural gas consumptions were noted from the utility bills. Chapman Properties provided the building’s monthly fuel consumption during 2008 and the Columbia Gas Company of Pennsylvania provided the unit cost of natural gas for each month during 2008 (Appendix A) (11). The annual consumption value from the utility bills acted as the actual natural gas consumption value and was checked against a modeled value determined using the computer program ENERGY‐10. ENERGY‐10 is an energy program created by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Center for Building and Thermal Systems. This program enables architects, engineers and consultants to evaluate a building’s current energy consumption and identify cost savings areas and potential energy efficient measures. The software provides a baseline estimate of a building’s current energy use as well as recommendations for decreasing energy consumption and annual costs. ENERGY‐10 requests a variety of building and regional specific inputs and forms its analysis based upon items including weather data, HVAC controls, insulation, roof, ceiling and wall types and number, location and type of windows and doors (12). Figure 5 represents a typical input box in the ENERGY‐10 program.

Figure 5. ENERGY‐10 input box (13)

ENERGY‐10 was used as a tool to obtain a workable baseline energy consumption value rather than as a precise and accurate building model. The necessity for an extremely accurate model of the building itself was not nearly as important as finding the savings in energy obtained from implementing specific changes to the building. In this, the exact energy consumption baseline value can be negated, while attention should be paid to the results of the benefits of the changes. After inputting all of the building characteristics, ENERGY‐10 was able to build a model of the building’s current fuel consumption.

RESULTS Table 3 contains a summary of the energy costs from 2008. The majority of expenses were allocated to electric consumption.

Table 2. Summary of 2008 energy costs

Electricity Natural Gas Total

$57,373 $34,303 $91,676

63% 37% 100% The monthly costs for electricity and natural gas were modeled in Figure 6. While electricity costs remained relatively constant, fluctuating between about $4,000 and $6,000, the natural gas costs did not. Electricity costs were slightly higher during the summer months because of office air conditioning and fan demand. The natural gas consumptions, and thus

12

costs, were significantly higher during Pittsburgh’s winter months and nearly zero during the summer months. The monthly fuel costs fluctuated between $0 and just over $10,000.

Figure 6. 2008 electricity and natural gas costs for facility

Electricity The inventory of electrical devices, their respective kWh per year output and percentage of total electricity demand is noted in Table 3. The modeled amount of electricity consumed by the warehouse was the summation of these calculated consumptions. The calculated total electric demand was 492,480 kWh/yr, and the actual demand according to the 2008 utility bills was 519,000 kWh/yr. Thus, the electric calculations were able to model 95% of the building’s actual consumption. The remaining 5% left unaccounted for was likely attributed to an underestimation of operating hours for the electrical equipment.

Table 3. Inventory of all devices, power, and annual electricity demand

Component Quantity Individual Power, kW

Annual Electricity Demand, kWh/yr

Portion of the 95% of the Demand

Warehouse Aisle Lights 207 0.40 193,750 39%

Forklifts 12 5.28 121,650 25%

Other Warehouse Lights 87 various 58,500 12%

Overhead Office Lights 133 0.06 31,870 7%

Office Air Conditioning 3 3.50 27,720 6%

Exhaust Fans 14 2.24 19,460 4%

Printers 3 0.90 17,110 4%

Computers 7 0.24 10,640 2%

Refrigerator 1 0.50 4,380 1%

Fax/Copy 1 1.60 4,220 1%

Shrink-Wrap 3 1.38 2,330 1%

Dampers 12 0.10 750 0%

Dock Levelers 14 0.75 100 0%

TOTAL 492,480 100.0% The break‐down of the building and office electrical demand is shown in Table 3 and Figure 7.

13

Figure 7. (Left) Electricity consumption; (Right) Office space electricity consumption.

Lighting acted as the primary electric demand for the both warehouse and office spaces. Figure 7 shows that warehouse lighting alone accounted for over half of the building’s entire electric demand. Warehouse and office lighting together accounted for about 58% of electricity consumption. In 2008, an estimated $33,270 out of $57,373 was spent to light the building. Thus, to decrease electricity costs, significant measures should be taken to reduce lighting demand. Natural Gas The final ENERGY‐10 model stated that the building’s fuel consumption was 1,837,284 kBtu or 18,013 Ccf per year. According to the 2008 natural gas bills, the building’s actual consumption was 25,927 Ccf. Therefore, the model was able to account for about 70% of the 2008 fuel consumption. The modeled ENERGY‐10 model of the building’s natural gas consumption was less accurate than the modeled electric demand as ENERGY‐10 does not incorporate specific details about the warehouse’s radiant heating system. The warehouse’s radiant heaters, which account for nearly all of the total fuel demand, are less efficient in heating the space because they are mounted approximately 22 ft high. ENERGY‐10 does not request information about the mounting style of the heaters, and thus, the inefficiencies were not included in the model’s estimated consumption value.

14

IMPROVEMENTS

Methods After establishing a baseline for current electric and natural gas consumptions, behavioral, programming and capital investment recommendations were investigated to decrease the building’s energy use. An extensive research of energy saving techniques and current practices of known energy efficient commercial buildings and warehouses was carried out to generate the suggestions for this warehouse. A variety of improvements were assessed using an estimate of the cost of the improvement and the annual savings after its implementation. Also, a payback period was calculated for the suggested improvements that required capital investment. For performance based recommendations, savings percentages and annual savings were determined. The payback periods, annual savings and any additional environmental benefits and drawbacks were presented for the company’s review. Electricity The opportunities for electricity savings for the warehouse were significant, as there are minimal measures currently being taken to reduce power usage. Energy saving improvements for warehouse lighting and fans, as well as office lighting and air conditioning, were investigated for the warehouse. Each energy‐saving improvement was also accompanied with an analysis to identify which factors, such as capital costs, installation costs, hours of operation and price of fuel had an effect on the payback period of the improvement. Lighting Several lighting manufacturers were consulted to provide fixture and installation costs of the potential replacements for the warehouse’s 241 metal halide HID high‐bay fixtures (Figure 9). The area of the warehouse and the lumen outputs of each potential replacement were used to calculate how many light fixtures would be required to meet the current lighting levels in the warehouse. In addition, companies specializing in occupancy sensors were contacted to supply information regarding the purchasing and installation costs of the sensors. The coverage area of the occupancy sensors was used to determine how many sensors were needed to cover the area of the warehouse.

Figure 8. Warehouse high‐bay lighting.

The electric demands needed to operate the various replacement lights were calculated using both the wattage of the new lamps and their predicted hours of use. Using the estimated cost to purchase and install the lamps and fixtures, the annual expected kilowatt‐hour electric savings and the cost of electricity per kilowatt‐hour, a payback period was calculated for each potential lighting replacement scenario. Additional scenarios were carried out by following the aforementioned method, but also included combining occupancy sensors with the new light fixture replacements. Sample Electric Payback Period CURRENT

Current Light Fixtures: 241 400W Metal Halide Light Fixtures Hours in Operation per day = 9

15

Days in Operation per Year = 260 Utility Company Charge = $0.12/kWh Operating Cost = [(241 Fixtures)×(400kW/Fixture)×(9 hrs/day)×(260 days/yr)×($0.12/kWh)]

= $27,092 / yr PROPOSED

Proposed Light Fixtures: 271 240W High Bay Fluorescent T5HO Light Fixtures Hours in Operation per day = 9 Days in Operation per Year = 260 Utility Company Charge = $0.12/kWh Estimated Cost per T5HO Lamp Fixture = $200 Installation Cost per T5HO Lamp Fixture = $30 Cost for T5HO Light Fixtures = (271 Fixtures)×($200/Fixture) = $54,200 Installation Cost for T5HO Light Fixtures = (271 Fixtures)×($30.00/Fixture) = $8,130 Total Cost for Purchase & Installation= $62,330 Operating Cost = [(271 Fixtures)×(.240kW/Fixture)×(9 hrs/day)×(260 days/yr)×($0.12/kWh)]

= $18278 / yr SAVINGS

Savings/yr = [Current Operating Cost/yr – New Operating Cost/yr] = $27,092 ‐ $18,278 = $8,814 / yr

Payback Period = [(Total Purchasing Cost + Total Installation Cost) / (Savings/yr)]

= [($54,200 + $8,130)/ ($8,814/yr)] = ~7.0 years

Fans The exhaust fans utilized in this building line the uppermost section of the eastern wall. When turned on, louvers on the opposite wall open up to accept the fan‐generated cross‐breeze. This is the only method that the warehouse employs to cool the building besides, other than leaving the loading dock doors open. Cross‐ventilation is an efficient cooling strategy, however, the horizontal cross‐breeze runs across the top of the warehouse and often does not reach the employees working on the ground level. The energy savings potential was also calculated for the installation of more energy efficient fans and dampers that require less power to circulate air. A payback period was determined for the new fans and dampers by dividing the purchasing and installation cost by the estimated annual cost savings on electricity. Potential factors that result in a decrease in fan efficiency, the ratio of cubic ft of circulation per minute per watt, were also investigated. Information regarding energy consumption of energy efficient fans and their associated costs were requested from several industrial fan companies to effectively determine initial and operating costs. Also, an estimate of the potential electric savings from an increase in fan efficiency was determined. Natural Gas ENERGY‐10 was used to generate a series of recommendations to decrease the natural gas usage. The “low‐energy” case output of ENERGY‐10 provided the basis for the recommendations made to decrease the fuel consumption of the building. Possible energy reductions were anticipated by varying roof and wall insulation, the amount and location of windows, the temperature in the warehouse and HVAC systems. A more accurate list of savings recommendations, however, was formulated after making detailed input adjustments in ENERGY‐10 and comparing the modified total fuel consumption output to the baseline value. The difference in fuel consumption was converted into a yearly cost savings using the average price of fuel in 2008 provided by the Columbia Gas Company of Pennsylvania. Each energy‐saving improvement was also accompanied with an analysis to identify which factors, such as capital costs, installation costs, hours of operation and price of fuel had an effect on the payback period of the improvement.

16

Roof The effects of an increase in roof insulation were modeled with ENERGY‐10. The R‐value of the roof was incremented, and the resulting total fuel consumption was compared to the baseline value. The installation and material costs of the insulation were divided by the predicted fuel cost savings per year to yield a payback period for the increase in insulation. The R‐value and corresponding payback period were analyzed for expanded‐polystyrene foam (EPS) and fiberglass roof insulation. Walls The types and thicknesses of wall insulation in the warehouse space were varied in ENERGY‐10, and the corresponding total expected fuel consumption was compared to the baseline value to yield an overall energy savings for the insulation modification. As with the analysis of the roof insulation, the assumed installation and material costs were divided by the respective fuel savings cost per year to yield a payback period for the capital investment. The incremented R‐values of the wall that resulted from the variation of insulation thickness and the calculated payback periods were analyzed. This analysis was repeated for each side of the building, once for the 6 ft lower section of concrete masonry, and again for the 36 ft upper wall section. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) The total replacement of the radiant heating system was also considered. Before determining whether a complete replacement of the radiant heating system should be implemented, two methods were used to determine the building’s current heat load. The heat load of a building is the total heat per unit time that must be supplied in order to maintain a specified temperature in a building. The first calculation was performed by hand using a formula acquired from Cambridge Engineering Inc., in which the roof, wall, glass and infiltration loads were summed to yield the building’s current heat load requirement. The second calculation was performed automatically by ENERGY‐10 after the specifications of the building were entered. These two calculations were used as a check on each other, and the ENERGY‐10 building heat load calculation was used as the baseline value, while the total fuel consumption output for the varied heating system was noted and compared to the baseline consumption. The assumed cost of HVAC replacement and installation was divided by the expected annual fuel savings to yield a payback period for the capital investment. The effects of programming modifications regarding warehouse and office heating were investigated using ENERGY‐10. Yearly fuel savings were estimated for an absolute decrease in warehouse set‐point temperature and for the implementation of a setback temperature during off hours. With all other building controls remaining constant, the continuous set‐point temperature of the warehouse was decreased in increments of 0.5 °F, and the total yearly fuel consumption output was recorded. The yearly cost savings associated with the corresponding decrease in warehouse set‐point temperature were determined. Next, all building controls as well as the building’s set‐point temperature remained constant while a setback temperature was decreased in increments of 0.5 °F. The setback hours for Monday through Friday were assumed to be from 5 PM to 8 AM the following morning, and two variations of weekend setback schedules were modeled since employees must occasionally work on Saturdays. The annual savings for each set‐point/setback combination was also determined. Windows The effects of altering the amount, size and location of double, low‐e windows in the warehouse with ENERGY‐10 were observed. The type of window chosen for this alteration was low‐emissivity with double‐glazing. Low‐e windows are coated with a transparent glaze that reduces the conductance, or U‐value. A U‐value is the measurement of the rate of heat loss or gain through a material. The lower the U‐value, the better the window is at insulating (14). First, groups of windows were added to each side of the building in varying quantities and with different sized panes. For example, on the north wall, 25 3 ft by 4 ft windows were added to the top part of the wall to yield an estimated annual energy consumption value in kBTU. The number of windows was then increased to 50, 100, 150, and so on until the

17

number of windows exceeded the allotted wall area. The process was repeated for 4 ft by 6 ft windows, and then for 6 ft by 6 ft windows, all of the same material. Then, the bottom part of the north wall was analyzed in the same way. The addition of windows was considered for north, south, east, and west walls of the building. Finally, the increases or decreases in fuel consumption from the baseline value of ENERGY‐10 were analyzed to determine where the window addition had the greatest effect. Different combinations of windows were added to the two sides that showed the greatest decrease in fuel consumption. The energy consumed, percent energy decreased and payback periods were calculated. Overhangs ENERGY‐10 was also used to model the effects of adding overhangs to each side of the office. The shading angle of the overhangs was slowly incremented for each side of the office, and then additional scenarios were tested, which increased the shading angle of two sides of the office simultaneously. The new fuel consumption after the shading was compared to the baseline value, and the total fuel consumption was recorded for incremented latitude angles of overhangs and compared to the baseline value to yield a potential annual savings. Results: Electric Lighting Five potential lighting replacements are discussed, while the projected savings for each light modification over the next ten years is shown in Figure 10. Table 4 summarizes the effects of each of these lighting replacements.

The first option involved adding occupancy sensors to the current light fixtures. After receiving product information from WattStopper™ Commercial Lighting and Controls, it was decided that passive infrared radiation (PIR) sensors would provide the greatest energy reduction and savings. PIR sensors operate by detecting body movement due to a thermal disturbance in the sensor’s, and a signal is relayed to the light fixture and the light turns on until it no longer detects a thermal disturbance view (15). Two different coverage patterns were available for the PIR sensors: 360° area coverage and linear coverage. The most appropriate sensor to cover the aisle areas within the warehouse was a linear coverage sensor that senses movement 30 feet in each direction. In order to provide the recommended 20% overlap between sensor views, it was concluded that 163 sensors would be required to cover the area of the warehouse. An overall 30% decrease in electricity consumption, a $15,110 annual savings and a payback of 1.3 years resulted from this improvement (Table 4 , Figure 9). An increase in capital costs and installations costs of the sensors would have little effect on the payback period, neither increasing the payback period by more than one year.

eplacing the current 400W, 241 metal halide warehouse lamps with T8 Fluorescent Lamps resulted in a 17% decrease in electricity consumption, a $7,470 annual savings and a 14 year payback (Table 4 , Figure 9). “T8” refers to the diameter of the bulb in 1/8 inch, thus, this diameter of a T8 bulb is 1/8 inch multiplied by 8 to yield a one inch diameter. A High Bay T8 lamp offers a lower light output, 79 lumens/watt as opposed to 85 lumens/watt for a metal halide, but operates at a much lower wattage than a metal halide (MH) light. On average, T8 lamps have a 5,000 hour longer life span compared to MH lamps and they offer an instantaneous start (8) .

Two disadvantages of the T8 Fluorescent lamp replacement were the higher initial cost and a greater number of necessary lamps so as to comply with the warehouse’s regulations of providing 30 lumens of light at 3 ft above the floor. Given the area of the warehouse and the necessary lumen compliance, 549 4‐bulb T8 light fixtures were required to properly illuminate the space. An increase in capital costs by more than 25% would increase the payback period by three or more years. On the other hand, increases of 0‐50% in the cost of installation would not alter the payback period by more than one year. However, if either the hours of operation of lights or the cost of fuel were to increase by more than 50% in the future, payback periods for the T8 fixtures will increase by more than twenty years.

18

Table 4. The payback period and annual savings associated with each lighting modification

Payback

(Yrs) Savings/Yr

% Savings Electric

Bill

Current Lighting 0.0 $0 0%

Current Lighting w/ sensors 1.3 $15,110 30%

High Bay Fluorescent T8 14.0 $7,470 17%

High Bay Fluorescent T5HO 6.8 $9,096 20%

High Bay Fluorescent T8 w/ sensors 6.8 $18,480 35%

High Bay Fluorescent T5HO w/ sensors 4.3 $19,273 36%

Replacing all current warehouse lamps with T5HO Fluorescent Lamps resulted in a 20% decrease in electricity consumption, a $9,096 annual savings and a 6.8 year payback (Table 4 , Figure 9). The high‐output T5 lamp is 5/8 inch in diameter. Though smaller than the T8 Fluorescent Lamp, the T5HO yields a greater light output, and thus, fewer lamps are required to illuminate the warehouse. The T5HO lamp operates at a higher wattage than the T8 Fluorescent Lamp, 240 watts as opposed to 128 watts, and the initial costs are greater. Given the area of the warehouse and the necessary lumen compliance, 271 4‐bulb T5HO light fixtures were required to properly illuminate the space. An increase in capital costs by more than 25% will increase the payback period by two or more years. On the other hand, varying installation costs will not alter the payback period by more than one year. The fourth option involved the combination of replacing the current light fixtures with T8 fixtures and adding occupancy sensors to the T8 fixtures. By replacing the MH fixtures with the 549 T8 fixtures and adding the 163 PIR sensors, it resulted in a 35% decrease in electric consumption, an $18,480 annual savings and payback of 6.8 years (Table 4 , Figure 9). Increasing the capital price or installation prices by 50% did not alter the payback period by a significant amount; it still remained under nine years. On the other hand, a decrease in the hours of operation of the sensors greatly increased the payback period and added anywhere from ten to thirty years, respectively. The final lighting energy saving strategy for the warehouse combined replacing the current MH lamps with 271 T5HO light fixtures and adding 163 PIR occupancy sensors. This change revealed savings of 36% in electricity, $19,273 annually and had a payback period of 4.3 years (Table 2, Table 4 , Figure 9). The payback period remained under six years if capital or installation costs required an additional 50% investment. However, similar to the previous scenario, the payback period increased by ten to twenty‐five years when decreasing the hours of operation of the sensors or increasing the cost of electricity.

Figure 9. Annual savings associated with replacing current lights with fluorescent fixtures and occupancy sensors

19

Fans A total replacement of the exhaust fans and dampers was evaluated and determined to be an easily achievable, energy savings recommendation. The existing exhaust fans in the warehouse operate around 6.8 cubic ft per minute per watt (cfm/watt). Replacing these fans with high efficiency exhaust fans operating at 22 cfm/watt decreased the building’s total electricity consumption by 2.8%. To replace each of the current 14 exhaust fans would cost approximately $900 per fan for a total of $12,600. However, the electricity demand for the fans and dampers would decrease from 20,319 kWh/yr to 5,732 kWh/yr for an annual savings of 14,587 kWh. Using the building’s 2008 electricity monthly rates, this energy savings equated to about $1,800 each year. Thus, the payback period for the cost and installation of more energy efficient exhaust fans and dampers was 7 years. The calculation is shown below: Payback Period = $12,600 installation and material cost / $1,800 savings per year = 7 years The payback period increased moderately when a 25% to 50% increase in purchasing cost occurred, 1.2 to 2.3 years respectively. The hours of operation of the fans will have an insignificant effect of the payback period. However, additional measures can be taken to reduce electricity consumption that do not require replacing the existing fans. The efficiency of a fan is directly related to the dust buildup on the fan blades. An eighth inch of dust on a fan’s blades and shutters can reduce fan performance by as much as 30% (16). When dust accumulates on fan shutters they are not able to fully open, thus restricting air flow and decreasing overall efficiency. Energy savings can occur by performing a monthly or bimonthly inspection of the fan’s belts, pulley wheels, dampers, fan blades and filters and cleaning the components when necessary. Depending on the current condition of the fourteen exhaust fans and dampers in the warehouse, regular fan maintenance will yield an estimated electricity savings of $500 to $750. Results: Natural Gas Roof Insulation To increase the R‐value of the roof, insulation wad gradually added to the ENERGY‐10 model. The “Low‐energy” output of ENERGY‐10 suggested increasing the roof from R‐19 to R‐38. In order to determine the optimum energy savings, the R‐value was continually increased until it hit ENERGY‐10’s maximum level. In order to obtain the suggested R‐38 roof, the payback period for the expanded‐polystyrene foam (EPS) insulation was over 53 years. Although the annual savings was $4,462, the initial purchasing and installation costs were significantly higher. Similar results were obtained when the effects of adding additional fiberglass insulation were modeled. An R‐38 roof with fiberglass insulation required a 40 year payback period with an annual savings of $4,475. Both EPS foam and fiberglass insulation payback periods can vary greatly with the cost of purchasing and installing the insulation. Due to the large area of the roof, an increase in ten cents per sq ft of material can increase the payback period by more than ten years. However, energy savings were independent of the price of natural gas and therefore a large increase in the price of natural gas will result in a much higher annual savings and a much lower payback period.

Figure 10. The payback periods associated with investing to add fiberglass or foam insulation to the roof

20

Figure 10 shows that an increase in R‐value also increased the payback period for the investment. Fiberglass batt insulation produced a faster payback period than the EPS foam insulation at all R‐values. Wall Insulation The effects of insulation were modeled for the upper and lower portions of the warehouse walls separately. Adding insulation increased the annual savings per year (Figure 11). Little increase in savings occurred after the insulation increased above 9 inches. The maximum savings per year occurred when fiberglass insulation was added as opposed to the EPS foam insulation. Adding fiberglass insulation to the upper walls also produced a faster payback period than adding EPS foam insulation (Figure 11). The payback period for adding fiberglass insulation appeared to be relatively constant, with the lowest payback occurring around the 3 inch increase mark. The annual savings results for the addition of foam and fiberglass insulation to the lower concrete masonry unit walls are shown in Figure 12. EPS foam resulted in the greatest savings per year. After the first inch was added, a small increase in savings occurred.

Figure 11. Annual fuel savings & payback period for increased insulation to the upper walls

Figure 12. Annual fuel savings & payback period for increased insulation to the lower walls

A comparison between the payback periods for the addition of EPS foam and Polyiso insulation to the lower walls of the warehouse is shown in Figure 12. The high costs of purchasing and installing the EPS and Polyiso foam insulations coupled with the low savings per year from these changes resulted in long payback periods. Of the two insulation types tested for the lower wall, EPS foam produced a lower payback period. The payback period for the upper wall increases two years for each ten cent increase in price per sq ft of material. Increasing the installation costs for the upper wall by an additional ten cents per sq ft increases the payback period by five years. Similarly, a ten cent increase per sq ft in the purchasing cost of foam insulation for the lower wall increases the payback period by about two years. Increasing installation costs of the EPS and Polyiso foam by the same price raises the payback period an additional seven to nine years. However, both the upper and lower wall experience significant decreases in payback periods when the price of fuel increase. A 50% increase in the price of fuel lowers the payback period by six to eight years for the upper wall and fifteen years for the lower wall.

21

Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Several scenarios where modeled in ENERGY‐10 to increase the energy efficiency of the building’s heating system. The effects of adding additional thermal mass to the building showed no indications of significant energy savings. A complete replacement of the current heating system with Cambridge® direct gas‐fired heaters was tested. After contacting a Cambridge® service representative, the prices for Cambridge® heating units and their operating costs were acquired. The heat load analysis of the building showed that a total replacement of the current 26 infrared radiant heaters could be achieved with 3 Cambridge® S‐Series direct gas‐fired heating units (17). Case studies of nearly identical warehouses, in terms of square footage, wall and ceiling R‐values, with radiant heating systems have shown a 15‐40% reduction in heating costs when replaced with Cambridge® direct gas‐fired heating units (18). After the replacement, a 15% reduction in energy costs resulted in an annual savings of $5,146 and a payback of 12.2 years. A 40% reduction in energy costs showed an annual savings of $13,721 with a payback of only 4.6 years. Due to the high cost of the direct gas‐fired heating units, an increase in costs of the heaters by 25% to 50% can increase the payback period anywhere from one to three years. Installation costs were shown to have an insignificant effect on the payback period. Similar to the other suggested replacements, an increase in the hours of operation or the price of fuel by more than 50% will increase the payback period significantly, more than five years. The next scenario tested replacing the current heating system with baseboard electric heat. The ENERGY‐10 model showed a $14,206 savings per year in natural gas but a $21,541 increase in the cost of electricity. It was concluded that this replacement would not increase the energy efficiency of the building. The results of the warehouse and office programming modifications investigated using ENERGY‐10 were modeled and shown in Table 5 and Table 6. In every scenario modeled, a decrease in set point, setback, or both temperatures always resulted in a decrease in annual fuel consumption. A decrease in set point temperature did not require a programmable thermostat since the current thermostat temperature can be lowered. Therefore, there was neither an installation nor material cost for the energy savings modification. The continuous decrease in set point temperature resulted in an estimated yearly savings of approximately $700 per 0.5°F decreased (Table 5). The total fuel consumption was reduced by 3% with each set point decrease of 0.5°F.

Table 5. Savings associated with various continuous set point temperatures.

Continuous Set point

Set point,

°F

Setback, °F

Decrease in Fuel Use

Annual Savings

56.0 none 0% $0

55.5 none 3% $708

55.0 none 6% $1,400

54.5 none 8% $2,070

54.0 none 11% $2,722

53.5 none 14% $3,346

53.0 none 16% $3,944

52.5 none 18% $4,515

52.0 none 21% $5,068

51.5 none 23% $5,601

51.0 none 25% $6,091

50.5 none 27% $6,570

50.0 none 29% $7,025

22

The estimated annual savings on fuel consumption with the implementation of a setback temperature period was estimated between $350 and $450 with each 0.5 °F setback (Table 6). Estimates were made for two schedules. The first operation schedule modeled consisted of a set point temperature for nine hours during the week and a setback temperature after business hours during the week as well as for the entire weekend. The second operation modeled consisted of a set point temperature for nine hours during the week and for four hours during the weekend and a setback temperature at all other times. The estimated annual savings was higher for longer setback periods since the HVAC system would theoretically consume less fuel during those hours. An additional $100 per 0.5 °F was saved when the warehouse temperature was setback for the entire weekend. A 5 °F setback temperature, which brought the warehouse to 50 °F during unoccupied hours, resulted in an annual savings of between $2,500 and $3,500 depending on the operation schedule for the weekend.

Table 6. Savings associated with varied workday set point and setback temperatures.

Set point M - F 8 AM to 5 PM

Set point M - F 8 AM to 5 PM, Sat. 7 AM -

11 AM

Set point,

°F

Setback, °F


Annual Savings


Annual Savings

56.0 56.0 0% $0 0% $0

56.0 55.5 2% $445 1% $358

56.0 55.0 4% $878 3% $711

56.0 54.5 5% $1,283 4% $1,035

56.0 54.0 7% $1,653 5% $1,325

56.0 53.5 8% $1,970 6% $1,574

56.0 53.0 9% $2,252 7% $1,790

56.0 52.5 10% $2,511 8% $1,978

56.0 52.0 11% $2,750 9% $2,144

56.0 51.5 12% $2,951 9% $2,284

56.0 51.0 13% $3,135 10% $2,405

56.0 50.5 13% $3,300 10% $2,506

56.0 50.0 14% $3,448 11% $2,595

23

Window Installation Figure 13, Figure 14 and Table 7 show that the payback periods for installing windows into the building were very high despite the trial of several combinations of window sizes and locations (Figure 13).

Figure 13. The payback periods for the installation of 3 ft by 4 ft double, low‐e windows.

The ten smallest payback periods for the installation of windows are shown in Table 7. The average percent decrease in energy consumption was also calculated for each location of windows. This was calculated through observing the changes in fuel consumption for varying sizes, quantities, and locations of windows and calculating an average energy decrease. The East and South side combinations were found to be the most efficient and resulted in an average energy decrease between 1.7 % and 3.7% annually (Table 8).

Figure 14. The payback periods for the installation of 4 ft by 6 ft (left) and 6x6 (right) double, low‐e windows.

24

Table 7. Payback periods for double, low‐e window installation.

Location Size # Payback Period

(years)

South, bottom 6 ft x 6 ft 25 68.31








South, bottom & top 6 ft x 6 ft 50 79.71



South, bottom & top 6 ft x 6 ft 80 84.21

Table 8. Average energy decrease for double, low‐e window installation.

Location Average % Energy Decrease

South, bottom & top 3.70

East & South, bottom 3.69

East, bottom / South, top 3.40

East & South, top 3.07

East, bottom & top 2.99

East, top / South, bottom 2.73

South, top 2.10

East, bottom 2.07

South, bottom 1.68

East, top 1.13

The most dramatic decrease in energy consumption resulted from window installation on the entire South side or from installation on the bottom half of both the East and South sides. The heat produced from the sun’s energy is most intense in these directions. If windows were installed, less energy would have to be produced mechanically by the warehouse’s HVAC system. The extra daylight could also be of use in conjunction with the current lights in the warehouse. The payback periods are so high, however, that the installations of windows are not recommended. Overhangs According to ENERGY‐10 models, the addition of overhangs to the North, West, or both the North and the West windows of the office did not result in a significant decrease in expected fuel consumption (Figure 15). Therefore, to decrease fuel costs, it is not recommended that overhangs be added to any of the office windows. The potential effects of overhangs on electrical demands were not modeled using ENERGY‐10.

25

Figure 15. The effects of office overhang shading on the building's fuel demand.

26

OFFICE MODIFICATIONS Methods

A set of easily achievable office space recommendations were made after completing extensive research about existing energy efficient office spaces. Behavioral, programmable and investment recommendations were explored both qualitatively and quantitatively, and a list of sustainable, energy efficient recommendations was formulated based upon the notion that a 0‐5% cost increase is considered acceptable for “greening” a space.

Results The objective was to provide a list of sustainable office material and product suggestions for current and future office renovations. Recycled and sustainable materials reduce waste and conserve raw materials, natural resources, energy consumption and landfill capacity. Investment Recommendations Appliances Replacing current appliances with EnergyStar appliances, resulted in an average of 10‐50% less energy consumption per device. EnergyStar appliances are known to be safer for environment (29). Sustainable Carpet Typically, carpet is made from synthetic, petroleum‐based fibers including nylon, polypropylene or polyester and often emits high levels of VOCs which have been known to cause coughing, fatigue, headaches, pneumonia, and skin problems. Traditional carpet is usually disposed of in a landfill where they do not decompose. P.E.T. Polyester fibers are naturally stain resistant, “green” carpet fibers made from recycled plastic bottles which thus reduce the need for petroleum based materials and landfill waste. At the end of the carpet life, often as long as 20 years, these fibers can be recycled into other products such as car parts. Sustainable carpet has a longer life than petroleum based carpet adding to its green image and making it an appealing replacement. The denser the fiber is packed, and the shorter it is, the better it will perform (30). Cork Flooring Tiles Cork is considered environmentally friendly and sustainable. No cork trees are cut down during the material harvesting process. The cork bark is peeled for material use without destroying the tree and the bark grows back within nine years when it may be harvested again. Cork flooring tiles provide terrific insulation against noise and temperature change and are resistant to insects and fire. Cork flooring qualifies for points under the LEED Certification process and offers an exceptional lifetime compared to traditional carpets. (31) RecycledContent Gypsum Board Gypsum Board is a type of drywall that is fireproof, nontoxic, and reduces noise level. Over 30 billion sq ft are used in construction every year. Recycled gypsum board often contains as much as 80% coal fly ash (the material remaining after coal combustion), and recycled newspaper. The high recycled content significantly reduces energy use and associated emissions from processing and shipment of gypsum board and solid waste from its disposal (32). RecycledContent Mineral Wool Insulation Mineral wool is an insulation material similar to fiberglass. Unlike fiberglass, the raw material used is slag, a waste material used from iron ore smelting. Mineral wool contains an average of 75% post‐industrial recycled content. Mineral wool batts have a higher density than fiberglass, are more fire resistant, and block sound more effectively. Mineral wool insulation is less prone to air convection thermal losses and achieves an R‐value of approximately 3.7 ft²·°F·h/Btu per inch. This R‐value is comparable to spray cellulose insulation and high density fiberglass batts. The average material costs for mineral wool insulation range from $0.40 ‐ $0.60 per sq ft. Cellulose Insulation Cellulose insulation is made from recycled wood fiber, primarily newsprint. It provides a thermal resistance of 3.6 to 3.8 ft²·°F·h/BTU per inch. A Princeton University study showed that a group of homes with blown in cellulose insulation in the walls observed an average of 25% reduction of air infiltration compared to fiberglass insulation (33). The study also

27

showed that the high density of cellulose insulation provided a tighter fit as well as an increase in energy savings. Cellulose insulation is often 2 to 3 times more dense than traditional fiberglass insulation. RecycledContent MineralFiber Ceiling Panels and Tiles Mineral fiber ceiling panels and tiles are wet pressed and typically made from a mixture of waste paper, mineral fiber (which may include slag, a waste product from steel‐making), cornstarch, and various other mineral‐based components. Several LEED Certification points are available should VinylShield A™ mineral fiber ceiling panels be used. The panels are made of 63% recycled content (12% post consumer and 51% pre consumer). In addition, their high light reflectance may reduce lighting demands (34). Low VOC Materials and Paints Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids such as paint, lacquers, cleaning supplies, pesticides, wood preservatives, and glue. Minimizing exposure to methylene chloride, benzene, and percholoroethylene and increasing ventilation can help prevent sick building syndrome, a where building occupants experience dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating.. Nearly all LEED certified buildings contain low VOC materials and paints. Recycled Ceramic Tile Countertops Ceramic tile can be manufactured from recycled light bulbs, bottles, glass, and porcelain. Recycled ceramic tile is also biodegradable and contains low VOC adhesives. The product is highly durable and post consumer tiles are generally readily available. Movable Partitions Movable partitions can be installed for one office configuration and may be taken down and reconfigured for another. 100% of the material is reused and this building is not damaged upon reconfiguration. A notable movable wall manufacturer is IrisWall©. IrisWall© wall systems provide an environmentally alternative to drywall construction. The panels contain an aluminum frame construction. The walls are made from 100% recycled material and the limitless design options allow them to be erected in any office building (35). Waterless/Dual Flush Urinals A case study at the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), Atlantic Ecology Division facility in Narragansett, Rhode Island documented the efficient use of water at its facility (36). Average costs of a waterless urinal and dual flush toilet retrofit are $300 and $50 respectively. Typical payback periods range from 4 to 5 years with average savings in retrofitted office restrooms over 52%. Performance Based Improvements and Additional Recommendations The following performance based improvements were recommend to further decrease energy consumption.

• Invest in power saving strips to reduce electricity consumption (see Appendix B for estimated savings and payback period)

• Install occupancy sensors in restrooms, locker rooms, conference rooms, offices (see Appendix B for estimated savings and payback periods)

• Encourage employees to begin a recycling program within the office space • Turn off lights when not in use, including: non‐essential overhead lighting in day‐lit areas, lighting in unoccupied

rooms, equipment and storage areas • Close blinds and window coverings on all solar exposed windows during appropriate times of the day or when

rooms are not in use. When not in direct sunlight, open blinds and shades to reduce or eliminate the need for overhead lighting

• After business hours, turn off monitors, printers, and other equipment except for essential equipment for after hours operation (e.g., e‐mail, e‐mail servers, fax machines or other essential equipment)

28

INNOVATIONS Methods

The energy savings, environmental and worker performance benefits and negative drawbacks of more costly, innovative investments were explored by researching existing building projects. Innovations were considered to be those that were less common in commercial buildings, more challenging and timely to install or still in the experimental stages of development. Among the list of items investigated were fuel cell forklifts, cool/reflective roof replacement, solar panel integration and industrial fans. Innovative strategies and systems in existing commercial buildings were also explored to generate future sustainable construction ideas.

Results The innovative items investigated were fuel cell forklifts, cool/reflective roof replacement, solar panel integration, and industrial fans. Case studies of current warehouse, office, and storage operations were also explored to provide further sustainable, energy efficient design suggestions for future building construction or complete retrofits. Fuel Cell Forklift A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. The by‐products are water and heat (19). Since the conversion of the fuel to energy replaces combustion with an electrochemical process, the process is clean, quiet and highly efficient, often two to three times more efficient than fuel burning. The advantages and disadvantages of fuel cell forklifts are as follows (20): Advantages

• Battery cell life of 14 hours before refueling is needed • Requires only 5 minutes to refuel, making it very efficient in warehouses that operate two‐three shifts per day

(typical batteries require 8 hours of charging along with a cool down period). Warehouses that require two or more shifts per day also require two or three batteries per forklift because batteries cannot be recharged during the day while the forklifts are being used

• Offer higher productivity and maintain constant level of power during operation. Normal fork lift battery power can decrease to 70% of its original power output towards the end of its charged life

• Produces zero harmful emissions. The only emission is hot water • Payback period as little as 4 years

Disadvantages • High capital cost. Often $5000 more per forklift • Cost of purchasing hydrogen fuel • Electrolysis requires electricity to create the hydrogen • Limited number of hydrogen refueling stations require fuel to be transported to desired location • Durability and lifetime of current fuel cells are still uncertain in forklift operations

Cool/Reflective Roof An ordinary commercial building rooftop negatively contributes to the “urban heat island” effect which is defined as the phenomenon whereby urban development and waste heat from automobiles, air conditioning, and industry result in an area that is significantly warmer than the surrounding suburbs or countryside (21). The materials commonly used in urban areas are concrete and asphalt and these have thermal properties that absorb and emit heat at a much higher rate than other materials. Black rooftops, roads and parking lots, and waste heat can cause a 6‐10 °F temperature difference from the urban area to the suburbs. The advantages and disadvantages of a cool/reflective roof replacement are as follows (22): Advantages

• Reflects more of the sun's energy back into the atmosphere as opposed to absorbing the heat, thus reducing the urban heat island effect

• Reduces the amount of energy needed to cool buildings

29

• Can reduce peak cooling demand by 15%–20% Disadvantages

• Degradation of reflective roof coatings since high‐albedo property of roof is primarily responsible for the cooling‐energy savings

• Study performed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory showed most cool roofs lose 10% of their efficiency within the first year after the application but little degradation after that

• Only saves money for buildings with AC and thus would not be effective for the warehouse Case Study: Thomas O. Price Service Center (23)

• Cool roof purchased and installed for $25,000 (about $1 per square foot) • The service center recorded savings of $4,000 annually, a 48.7% reduction in cooling costs, and a payback of just

over six years Solar Panel Integration Photovoltaic (PV) modules convert sunlight directly into electricity. PV modules have traditionally been mounted above the roof on racks, but have recently been integrated directly into roofing and walls. The advantages and disadvantages of a PV system integrated onto the rooftop are as follows (24): Advantages

• Reduces the amount of electricity purchased from the utility company • Reduces the consumption of non‐renewable electricity generated from coal, gas, oil and nuclear sources • Reduces air pollution from burning of fossil fuels • Reduces water and land use from central generation plants • Reduces storage of waste by‐products. • Many states and the federal government have programs and tax incentives to reduce capital and installation

costs for panels Disadvantages

• Electricity produced is about $0.25 ‐ $0.50 per kilowatt‐hour (kWh) when considering initial cost spread over the lifetime of the system, plus maintenance costs (25)

• Solar cells produce direct current which must be converted to alternating current with the use of a grid tie inverter. Energy loss from the this process varies from 4‐15%

High Volume, Low Speed Industrial Fans One suggestion to improve the indoor environment of the warehouse is to install high volume, low speed industrial ceiling fans (26). These fans are different than the low volume, high speed fans currently installed in the upper portion of the south wall of the building. Although these fans do an efficient job of cooling, the only air that gets cooled is in the horizontal direction. And since these fans are located along the top of the wall of the warehouse, the cooled air does not reach the employees. They also do not circulate the air well throughout the space, and do nothing to de‐stratify heat. Advantages

• In warmer months, the fans will create air movement similar to that of a wind chill effect. The air circulates throughout the space, and this movement, regardless of actual air temperature, will cool the workers inside.

• In colder months, the fans have the ability to push down stagnant ceiling heat and circulate it throughout the space. So in this case, there will be less energy loss from heat waste

• Positive impact on worker productivity and efficiency • Larger blades than standard industrial fans so cover more space and can circulate air through areas of up to

22,000 square feet • Quiet

30

Disadvantages • Can be expensive • Very large and may not fit into allotted ceiling space • Require regular maintenance

31

CONCLUSIONS The goal of this project was to conduct a detailed energy analysis of the warehouse and provide suggestions to make the building more energy efficient and sustainable. Many of the results presented in this report are considered transferrable results as they can be used as energy efficient measures for the development and construction of future property as well. Table 9 contains a summary of the improvement payback periods studied in this report.

Table 9. Recommendations and their associated purchase costs, savings, and payback periods.

Due to time constraints, a complete energy audit was unable to be performed to pinpoint specific areas of energy loss within the warehouse. For example, air infiltration in the dock area of the western wall was unable to be modeled but should not be ignored as a significant source of heat loss during the cold, winter months. In order to capture this detail and others, a full scale energy audit is recommended to isolate all areas where energy efficient measures can be taken. In addition, a complete sensitivity analysis was not conducted but is recommended to determine precisely how variables such as fuel, electricity, installation, and initial investment costs and operation schedules may alter the estimated payback period. Additional time would also be required to accurately model the building using a variety of energy modeling software programs. These results should be compared to the results obtained from the ENERGY‐10 model in this report to identify an even more accurate baseline value. Lastly, without a working budget, it was difficult to make suggestions for improvements. Requesting information from manufacturers and company representatives was a challenge because it was not in the contact’s interest to provide information regarding purchasing, installation, and operating costs for various electrical and gas consuming devices since we were not making a purchase or requesting their service. Although a quantitative analysis was desired to accompany all of our recommendations, it was difficult to quantify many of the improvements because company representatives needed to be sent to the warehouse to assess the current situation. In this research, many sustainable solutions to lessen both energy and cost expenditures in the warehouse have been found to be highly realistic and straightforwardly obtainable. With minimal effort, these changes will contribute to enhanced benefits and marketability for the owners, indoor environmental quality and productivity for the occupiers and will lessen harmful waste and emissions that impact the outdoor environment. If this trend continues to become more readily accepted and implemented, both economy and ecology can be sustainable and will thrive together.

32

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our research group would like to thank Dr. Melissa Bilec, Dr. Joe Marriott and Maria Fernanda Padilla for their guidance throughout this project. Additionally, we wish to recognize Anthony Rosenberger and Matt Ciccone of Chapman Properties, Andrew Dengel, and the Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation at the University of Pittsburgh for providing us with this research opportunity. Funding for this research was generously provided by the Chapman Properties, Scalise and the National Science Foundation.

33

WORKS CITED 1. U.S. Green Building Council. USGBC: Green Buildings Research. [Online] 2008. [Cited: July 20, 2009.] www.usgbc.org. 2. USGBC Research Committee. A National Green Building Research Agenda. s.l. : USGBC, November 2007. 3. Center for Sustainable Systems. Commercial Buildings Factsheets. [Document]. Ann Arbor, Michigan : University of Michigan. CSS05‐05E08. http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05‐05.pdf. 4. Energy Information Administration. Overview of Commercial Buildings, 2003. Energy Information Administration EIA Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. [Online] December 2008. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/overview.pdf. 5. Chapman Properties. Chapman Properties. [Online] 2006. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] www.champmanprop.com/chap. 6. —. Leetsdale Industrial Park: Development Master Plan. Champman Properties. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] http://www.chapmanprop.com/chap/_images/LIP%20Site%20Plan%20July%202006.pdf. 7. The Design Alliance Architects. Overall Partition Plan: Pennzoil ‐ Building C. Pittsburgh : s.n., June 28, 2002. 8. Waier, Phillip J., [ed.]. Building Construction Cost Data. 64th Edition. Kingston : RSMeans Construction Publishers & Consultants, 2005. p. 720. 9. Commercial Building Tax Deduction Coalition. High‐Bay: Fluorescent vs. Metal Halide. Commercial Lighting Tax Deduction. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] http://www.lightingtaxdeduction.org/technologies/high‐bay.html. 10. Duquesne Light. Electric Bills. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania : s.n., 2008. 11. Pennsylvania, Columbia Gas of. 2008 Pittsburgh Natural Gas Rates for Commercial Buildings. [interv.] Abigayle Sterle. Pittsburgh, July 1, 2009. 1‐888‐460‐4332. 12. Sustainable Buildings Industry Council. ENERGY‐10 A Powerful Energy Simulation Tool for Buildings and Homes. Sustainable Buildings Industry Council. [Online] 2008. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] http://sbicouncil.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=112. 13. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ENERGY‐10: A Conceptual Design Tool for Energy Efficient Buildings. 2002. Version 1.6.02. 14. Energy Analysis. Low E technology & double‐glazed windows. Energy Analysis. [Online] 2008. [Cited: July 18, 2009.] energyanalysis.org. 15. Watt Stopper. Product Type ‐ Fixture Sensors and Controls. Watt Stopper. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] http://www.wattstopper.com/products/productline_list.html?category=5&type=Commercial. 16. Shelton, David P. and Bodman, Gerald R. G951244 Ventilation Fans: Efficiency and Maintenance. University of Nebraska ‐ Lincoln. Lincoln : Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1995. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=extensionhist. 17. Winters, Daniel. Cambridge Heating Systems. [interv.] Matt Kaminski. Pittsburgh, July 1, 2009. 1‐412‐719‐9454. 18. Cambridge Engineering. Warehouse Heating... When Energy Matters. Cambridge Engineering: Energy Efficient Warehouse Heating Systems. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] http://www.cambridge‐eng.com/case_studies/warehouse_heating.asp. 19. Gangi, Jennifer. Fuel Cell‐Powered Forklifts: Raising the Bar. Industrial Utility Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Magazine. May/June 2008. http://www.iuvmag.com/articles/2008_05‐05.html. 20. Mahadevan, K, et al. Identification and Characterization of NearTerm Direct Hydrogen Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Markets. Columbus : Battelle, 2009. 21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA Basic Information. Heat Island Effect U.S. EPA. [Online] April 2007. [Cited: 30 2009, June.] http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/. 22. Barkaszi, Steve and Parker, Danny. Saving Energy with Reflective Roof Coatings. Home Energy. May/June 1994. http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/94/940509.html). 23. Southwest Energy Efficient Project. Southwest Energy Efficient Project. Arizona Case Study: Thomas O. Price Service Center. [Online] March 2009. [Cited: July 15, 2009.] http://swenergy.org/casestudies/arizona/tucson_topsc.htm. 24. ToolBase Services. Photovoltaics ‐ Building‐Integrated Photovoltaics. ToolBase Services. [Online] [Cited: July 1, 2009.] www.toolbase.org/technology‐inventory/roofs/photovoltaic‐building‐integrated. 25. OY Not Solar Power Systems. Grid Tie Only Solar Kit Systems, How to size yours. OY Not Solar Power Systems. [Online] [Cited: July 1, 2009.] www.oynot.com/grid‐tie‐only‐how‐to.html.

34

26. CiscoEagle. Industrial High Volume, Low Speed Fans for Warehouse and Plant Ceilings. Fans for Warehouse Ceilings Cooling Industrial Fans. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 3, 2009.] http://www.cisco‐eagle.com/storage/safety%20and%20ergonomics/fans/Index.htm. 27. U.S. Department of Energy. Building Technology Program: Buildings Database. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [Online] 2009. [Cited: June 5, 2009.] http://eere.buildinggreen.com/index.cfm. 28. Schmitz, Keith. Material Handling Management. Greening the Process. [Online] February 1, 2009. [Cited: June 5, 2009.] http://mhmonline.com/green‐material/mhm_imp_6760/index.html. 29. ENERGY STAR. Appliances: Energy Star. ENERGY STAR. [Online] 2009. [Cited: June 25, 2009.] http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=appliances.pr_appliances. 30. U.S. Department of the Interior. Sustainable Buildings. Greening the Department of the Interior. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 15, 2009.] http://www.doi.gov/greening/buildings/. 31. HK Green Building Technology Net. Recycled Flooring. HK Green Building Technology Net: Sustainable Building Products. [Online] [Cited: July 15, 2009.] http://gbtech.emsd.gov.hk/english/sustainable/materials_floor.html. 32. Ecology Action. Green Buildings Material Guide. Ecology Action. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 21, 2009.] http://www.ecoact.org/Programs/Green_Building/green_Materials/gypsum.htm. 33. Regal Industries Inc. Regal Cellulose TOPS Fiberglass in Performance. Regal Industries Inc. [Online] [Cited: July 1, 2009.] http://www.regalind.com/cellulosevsfiberglass.htm. 34. CertainTeed Corporation. VinylShield A, C: Mineral Fiber Ceilings. CertainTeed. [Online] 2009. [Cited: July 20, 2009.] http://www.certainteed.com/products/ceilings/performance‐series/smooth/314201. 35. Environmental Wall Systems, Ltd. IrisWall Movable Partitions. Environmental Wall Systems. [Online] [Cited: July 6, 2009.] http://ewswalls.thomasnet.com/item/all‐categories/iriswall‐movable‐partitions/iriswall?&forward=1#. 36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Case Study: Sanitary Fixture Upgrades at EPA's NHEERL Facility. Narragansett : s.n., 2006. EPA‐200‐F‐06‐002.

35

APPENDIX

Appendix A 2008 Monthly Utility prices

Electricity ($/ kWh) Gas ($/ccf)

January $0.1157 $1.1927

February $0.1180 $1.1927

March $0.1205 $1.1927

April $0.1184 $1.3374

May $0.1157 $1.3374

June $0.1288 $1.3374

July $0.1230 $1.7618

August $0.1235 $1.7618

September $0.1295 $1.7618

October $0.1201 $1.4814

November $0.1183 $1.4814

December $0.1183 $1.5241

36

Appendix B

Component

Purchase & Installation

Cost Estimated

Annual Savings Payback

Period (yrs)

WAREHOUSE

Lighting

Current Lights w/ occupancy sensors $19,397 $15,114 1.3

High Bay T8 Fluorescent $104,310 $7,470 14.0

High Bay T5HO Fluorescent $62,290 $9,096 6.8

T8 w/ occupancy sensors $124,807 $18,479 6.8

T5HO w/ occupancy sensors $82,765 $19,273 4.3

Wall Insulation

Lower Wall Insulation‐EPS Foam

Add 1" of Foam $10,773 $255 42.2

Add 2" of Foam $13,467 $307 43.9

Add 3" of Foam $16,160 $325 49.8

Add 4" of Foam $19,863 $342 58.1

Add 5" of Foam $22,557 $347 64.9

Add 6" of Foam $25,250 $356 70.9

Lower Wall Insulation‐Polyiso Foam

Add 1" of Foam $11,447 $277 41.3

Add 2" of Foam $14,813 $319 46.5

Add 3" of Foam $18,180 $342 53.2

Add 4" of Foam $22,557 $364 62.0

Add 5" of Foam $25,923 $382 67.9

Add 6" of Foam $29,290 $386 75.9

Upper Wall Insulation‐Eps Foam

Add 1" of Foam $25,173 $1,166 21.6

Add 2" of Foam $31,467 $1,542 20.4

Add 3" of Foam $37,760 $1,792 21.1

Add 4" of Foam $46,413 $1,976 23.5

Add 5" of Foam $52,707 $2,111 25.0

Add 6" of Foam $59,000 $2,219 26.6

Add 7" of Foam $67,653 $2,306 29.3

Add 8" of Foam $73,947 $2,379 31.1

Add 9" of Foam $80,240 $2,439 32.9

Upper Wall Insulation‐Fiberglass

Add 1" of Fiberglass $16,520 $1,023 16.2




37






Roof Insulation

Roof Insulation‐EPS Fiberglass

Increase R‐Value to 30 $132,600 $3,095 42.8








Roof Insulation‐EPS Foam









Heating & Thermostats

Replace Radiant Heat w/ Blow Thru Heater (15% more efficient) $63,000 $5,145 12.2

Replace Radiant Heat w/ Blow Thru Heater (40% more efficient) $63,000 $13,721 4.6

Programmable Thermostat Unit w/ 5° setup (5% more efficient) $2,600 $1,715 1.5

Programmable Thermostat Unit w/ 5° setup (15% more efficient) $2,600 $5,145 0.5

Other

Fuel Cell vs. Current Battery Forklifts‐one 8 hour shift/day $240,000 ‐$13,226 N/A

Fuel Cell vs. Current Battery Forklifts‐two 8 hour shifts/day $240,000 $10,972 21.9

Fuel Cell vs. Current Battery Forklifts‐three 8 hour shifts/day $240,000 $35,170 6.8

Exhaust Fans $12,572 $1,807 7.0

OFFICE

Power strips $150 $1,931 0.1

Dimming/Occupancy Sensors $2,423 $512 4.7

Thermostat setup 76°F & setback 67 °F $0 $1,551 0.0

Window Treatments/Shading N/A None N/A

38

Appendix C

Current Energy Consumption (2008) Energy Type Usage Units Cost

Electricity 519000.00 kWh $57,373.34 Natural Gas 25927.00 ccf $34,303.03

Totals 4415.38 MMBTU $91,676.37

*Option #1 Proposed Energy Consumption (Lower Energy Saving Case) *Option #1 Proposed Energy Consumption (Higher Energy Saving Case) Energy Type Usage Units Cost

% Savings Payback Energy Type Usage Units Cost

% Savings

Payback

Electricity 330671.87 kWh $38,008.16

33.44% 10.06

Electricity 330671.87 kWh $38,008.16

49.99% 9.33

Natural Gas 16631.72 ccf $23,014.44 Natural Gas 5421.856 ccf $7,842.16

Totals 2824.69 MMBTU $61,022.60 Totals 1681.282 MMBTU $45,850.32



% Savings

Payback

Electricity 393948.59 kWh $45,652.43

25.10% 17.10

Electricity 393948.59 kWh $45,652.43

41.65% 13.42





% Savings

Payback

Electricity 380491.18 kWh $44,026.68

26.87% 14.26

Electricity 380491.18 kWh $44,026.68

43.42% 11.82





% Savings

Payback

Electricity 302817.57 kWh $34,643.17

37.11% 12.17

Electricity 302817.57 kWh $34,643.17

53.66% 10.83





% Savings

Payback

Electricity 296246.62 kWh $33,849.35

37.97% 10.68

Electricity 296246.62 kWh $33,849.35

54.52% 9.77



*Options one through five differ only by the type of warehouse light modification, all other replacements and modifications are identical (i.e. thermostats, heaters, fans, insulation, etc…)

*Low Energy Case = one inch choice for wall & roof insulation, 5% more efficient thermostat unit, 15 % more efficient heater

*High Energy Case = three inch choice for wall & roof insulation, 15% more efficient thermostat unit, 40% more efficient heater

39

Appendix D Case studies of sustainably constructed industrial buildings (27) (28) BigHorn Home Improvement Center

• Daylighting and natural ventilation to lower the energy demand • Standing seam roof integrated PV system ‐ payback period of less than five years in some states • Row of translucent skylights‐ payback period: 2‐3 years. Provides enough light in the warehouse to account for

95% of the room’s illumination. • Burns cluster compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs and • Uses an energy management system that monitors and controls the lights, mechanical and electrical systems

according to present conditions • Stack ventilation effect eliminates the need for electric air conditioning by having opened lower windows and

doors to let in cool, fresh air that rises like the air flow in a chimney • Air is warmed by a transpired solar collector on the south wall and pumped into the warehouse as evenly

distributed warm air • Clerestory roof overhangs to divert direct summer light

Chicago Center for Green Technology • Within five years, solar energy is expected to provide 20% of the building’s electricity • 28 geothermal wells drilled to utilize the ground temperature 200 ft below surface for heating • Install low‐e windows

Navy Building • 100% of all of the occupied spaces daylit and naturally ventilated • Solar shading and glazing keep powerful rays at bay • Power generated by PV • Solar energy used for space heating and domestic water heating • Occupancy and daylight sensors used with electrical ballasts to limit the amount of current in an electric circuit.

Wind NRG Partners Manufacturing Facility • Super‐insulated and airtight • Walls: R‐20+, roof:R‐40, slab: R‐16 • Windows:R‐5; triple‐ paned, low‐e, insulated, fiberglass‐framed • Boilers are wood‐pellet fired with a propane backup • Occupancy and daylight sensors • Operable windows that automatically open at night for early cooling of the building

BPA Ampere Annex • Roof surface is EnergyStar membrane to decrease cooling loads • Windows are operable, polarized and decrease need for the artificial lighting when combined with translucent

ceiling panels • Daylight sensors

SC Johnson Industrial Buildings • To charge lift truck batteries: fast charge, high‐frequency system that detects when battery is fully charged and

shuts off the electric supply • Employees process batteries in stages so that chargers can be shut down completely • When building is not in use, chargers are powered off • Double wide lift trucks used to decrease the amount of trips being taken • Lift truck traffic patterns implemented • Uses environmentally friendly cleaning systems and products

Documents

summer research papr