Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Land...
Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Land...
Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Land...
Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Land...
Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Land...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Geotabs gv uponor

136 views
108 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
136
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Geotabs gv uponor

  1. 1. Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Landstr. 11122415 Hamburg GermanyT +49 (0)40 30 986-465F +49 (0)40 30 986-49465georgios.vagiannis@uponor.comThe concept of combined geothermal energy andThermal Active Building Systems (TABS): GEOTABSDate: 15.03.2013Location: HamburgDistribution: Ioannis Filippidis, Energia innovation LtdSalman Zafar, ecoMENADear Sirs,Uponor is a leading international provider of plumbing and indoor climate systems for theresidential and commercial building markets. Our solutions play an important role inpeoples lives globally by providing products that create a comfortable environment forliving, work and leisure.The concept of combined geothermal energy and Thermal Active Building Systems(TABS), known as GEOTABS, has been developed the last years and has known greatsuccess. The energy saving potential is substantial, starting from 20% and going up to70%. For a system like this though to reach its maximum potential of energy savings,professional design, control and installation, combined with a product of highest quality,must be combined from feasibility stage to final building-in-operation stage. The lattermeans that experienced and professional partners are considered crucial for systemoptimization.There are numerous researches, studies and references in the last years that show theenergy savings that the GEOTABS system can provide when it comes to heating andcooling of buildings. Apart from some other studies that have been sent to you, we wouldlike to provide you with some general results of a related study from Uponor “Full costcomparison of TABS vs. other HVAC”, conducted in cooperation with Equa SimulationFinland Oy and Mott MacDonald Limited, UK.This study compared a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis of an office building with a TABsystem to dominant traditional systems in five European countries; Germany, UK,France, Russia and Spain. Two locations where selected from each country and the localdominant traditional systems where compared to TABS and also GEOTABS (TABS with HPas seen below). Spain which its two selected locations, Madrid and Barcelona, areconsidered to be closer climatically to the Middle East and the locally dominant systemsin Spain, all air system and fan coils, very close to the systems installed in the mostcases in the Middle Eastern region also. It should also be noted that the mechanicalminimum fresh air ventilation system was introduced to create the same indoor airquality (IAQ) condition for all compared cases.The Building Energy Simulation (BES) data used to collate the report was provided byEqua Simulation Finland Oy. Cost analyses were performed by Mott MacDonald Limited.Using outputs from thermal modelling by Equa carried out on each case, Mott MacDonaldcreated design concepts and quantity survey for each mechanical services method. Costswere obtained from a variety of sources, including manufacturers, constructioneconomists, and Mott MacDonald’s own expertise.The building consisted of four floors with a total area of 1000 m2, length of 29 m, widthof 11 m, storey height of 2.8 m and total height of 12 m (Fig.1).
  2. 2. Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Landstr. 11122415 Hamburg GermanyT +49 (0)40 30 986-465F +49 (0)40 30 986-49465georgios.vagiannis@uponor.comFig. 1: The office building into investigation.The LCC calculation is undertaken in accordance with the method corresponding to theterm of global cost in EU Regulation No 244/2012, in terms of whole life cost for a 15year calculation period. Local and central plant (HVAC system items) were sized based oncooling/heating loads and ventilation rates from BES modeling, in the same method inthe course of completing a mechanical scheme design. Whole life costs for building andbuilding elements were calculated by summing up the different types of costs (initialinvestment, energy, running, disposal) and applying on these the discount rate as torefer them back to the starting year, plus the residual value as can be seen in Fig. 2below.Fig. 2: Whole life costs calculation.So the LCC comprises the initial investment costs (material and labor cost, projectmanagement and design cost as a percentage of material cost), running costs(maintenance, capital for renovation/replacement at the end of equipment lifetime) andenergy costs (utilities and fuel prices, annual energy use).
  3. 3. Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Landstr. 11122415 Hamburg GermanyT +49 (0)40 30 986-465F +49 (0)40 30 986-49465georgios.vagiannis@uponor.comSome final and general results for the location of Madrid are provided below. Annual usedprimary energy shows a total sum that has been used by the building. Primary energyrefers to the energy carriers at the beginning of the energy conversion chains (naturalresources) prior to undergoing any human-made conversions or transformations. Primaryenergy factors: for electricity 2.21 and for natural gas 1.07.Fig. 3: Annual delivered primary energy [kWh].Annual energy cost including cost of installing a new connection and annual standingcharge calculated for 15 years of life cycle. Cost of installing a new connection for naturalgas is not included in the case of TABS with HP.Fig. 4: Average annual energy costs comparison average per year, 15 years calculation period.To conclude on the LCC comparison between the proposed systems, the whole life costper year is provided, for a calculation for 15 years period and with medium priceescalation of 3% for gas and electricity.020000400006000080000100000120000140000160000All air fancoil TAB TAB w HPHeatingHVAC auxCooling020004000600080001000012000TAB TAB w HP Fan coil All airHVAC aux. cost/yearHeating cost/yearCooling cost/year
  4. 4. Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Landstr. 11122415 Hamburg GermanyT +49 (0)40 30 986-465F +49 (0)40 30 986-49465georgios.vagiannis@uponor.comFig. 5: Global cost, average per year, 15 years calculation period.Concluding in the results for the location that was provided above, Madrid, and also fromthe results from all the other locations, the TAB system (TABS) had the lowest LCC globalcost from the studied systems. This low LCC global cost was also accompanied by thebest thermal comfort results among all the studied systems, thermal comfort advantagesthat only a radiant cooling system can provide. The TABS with heat pump had the secondaverage lowest LCC global cost with lowest primary energy consumption, accompaniedby the same optimized thermal comfort conditions. The TABS without heat pump had thesecond best average primary energy consumption.It is important also to mention that the LCC global cost average rankings for both TABSvariations (with or without heat pump) were the same with all variations of electricity andgas price escalation rate and for both calculation periods (10 and 15 years).The advantageous use of TAB ceiling cooling with high supply water temperatures (17°C- 22°C) enabled the high COP in cooling and constituted more efficient free cooling fromground with the installation of the heat pump. The utilization of an intelligent controlsystem was the key to minimize the energy demand for cooling and thus the relatedcosts.The investment costs of both TABS versions were the lowest of the investigated systemsand also the cost optimal one. The latter was enabled also through the lowestmaintenance costs among the systems, simply due to the compared lower amount ofcomponents which needed service and maintenance. It is essential to point out that theTABS with the installed pipework in the ceiling provides relative safety from mechanicaland chemical stress and has an estimated lifetime of 50 years. Moreover, the residualvalue of TABS investments after 10 or 15 years calculation period is in both TABS casesbigger than with the other systems, where most of their components have a shorterlifetime (10-30 years) than the TABS ones.The advantages that TABS is equipped with derive from the function of the TABS itself.All the other investigated systems have lower supply temperature level with typicaldimension supply temperature of 7°C. Besides, cooling of the office spaces takes placemainly by convection. The latter means that without cooled radiating surfaces the sameindoor operative temperature requires more cooling than with the TABS ceiling system.At the same time the lower cooling water temperature decreased the COP for cooling inlower levels than with the TABS. Furthermore, the convective cooling with high air0100002000030000400005000060000TAB TAB w HP Fan coil All airHVAC aux. cost/yearHeating cost/yearCooling cost/yearMaintenance cost/yearRenovation cost/yearInvestment cost/year
  5. 5. Georgios VagiannisProject Manager EngineeringEngineering and Special ProjectsBusiness Group Indoor ClimateTangstedter Landstr. 11122415 Hamburg GermanyT +49 (0)40 30 986-465F +49 (0)40 30 986-49465georgios.vagiannis@uponor.comquantities increases the risk of draught and thus comfort dissatisfaction. Finally, the allair system and the fan coil system used higher air volumes and lower supplytemperatures than TAB system, resulting in that way in higher fan energy and so evenhigher risk for draught and comfort dissatisfaction.All the above conclude to the fact that a TAB system can constitute an economicaloptimal solution, when calculated for an economically reasonable time, where all relevantcosts are included. A ground source heat pump can deliver also lower running costs,accompanied though with increased investment costs, which by all means constitutelower LCC global costs of the other investigated systems. Moreover, the substantialeconomical LCC advantages of the TABS are accompanied by optimized indoor thermalcomfort results of a radiant cooling system. In conclusion, a TAB system has provenadaptable and cost effective for the Spanish conditions, providing both cost reductionsand improved indoor environment. Finally, the system is future proof as it works with anykind of energy source and facilitates the integration of renewable and free coolingsources.Hamburg, 15.03.2013Georgios Vagiannis

×