• Save
LEED and Beyond
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

LEED and Beyond

on

  • 404 views

Beyond LEED!

Beyond LEED!

Statistics

Views

Total Views
404
Views on SlideShare
404
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    LEED and Beyond LEED and Beyond Document Transcript

    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED Building on LEED Improving the Evaluation of Green BuildingsExecutive SummaryLEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is a certification andstandard-setting programme designed to improve the environmental sustainabilityof buildings and encourage the spread of “Green Buildings.” The success of thisprogram could be instrumental in achieving US energy and emission reduction goals;buildings contribute a significant percentage of both US energy and carbon dioxideemissions. The current version of LEED should be commended for itsentrepreneurial progress; it has undoubtedly contributed to considerablereductions in energy use and emissions. However, in order for LEED to achieve itsfull potential and evolve from a benchmark into a mandate, two key areas ofimprovement need to be addressed: • Point Alignment: The current version of LEED was designed to be a helpful benchmark for commissioners who desired to build environmentally sustainable buildings. It was not intended to be a mandate for all new buildings. As a result, the point allocations are somewhat unsystematic and not directly correlated to energy and emission reduction. To ensure that the LEED program achieves the highest potential environmental improvements, we argue that the current point system needs to be redesigned such that the Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 1
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED points align with actual energy savings over the lifecycle of the technology. Ultimately, the energy savings and appropriate point allocation should be calculated and weighted using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). • Incorporating Appropriate Standards for Lab Buildings: Currently, analysts are able to be reasonably accurate in projecting energy performance for most LEED certified buildings. However, for high energy-use buildings (such as labs), the projections do not correlate well with actual performance. Without an accurate understanding of future performance, it is difficult to design appropriate LEED standards for high energy buildings. Thus, we recommend efforts to improve the current knowledge base in relation to Lab buildings. In addition, we propose establishing a separate point-allocation system specific to lab buildings; like LEED for average buildings, this system should allocate points based on actual energy savings. The current LEED system has achieved a great deal and started us on a path towards environmental sustainability in buildings. However, it is critical that we continue to build on this success and allow LEED to have the greatest impact possible.1.1 Background LEED was designed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1998.Since then it has grown and been modified substantially, with the current versionbeing labelled LEED 2.2. Currently there are over 14,000 projects with LEEDcertification and many government agencies have been promoting LEED by Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 2
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDimplementing its standards in their own buildings. For example, a recent legislativeinitiative aims to require LEED certification in all newly built public schools. From an environmental standpoint LEED’s goal of reducing theenvironmental impact of buildings is extremely important. In North America, whereLEED is most predominant, buildings account for 20% of all energy usage.1Buildings also account for 72% of all electricity and 54% of all natural gasconsumption. They also contribute 37% of North American carbon dioxideemissions2 To put this into context, this means that US buildings alone emit morecarbon dioxide than any other entire country except China. To encourage reductionsin these environmental impacts of buildings, a system of standards monitoringenergy reduction and increase “greenness” of buildings is necessary. Theintroduction of LEED was a first step in developing these standards; it was designedto be used as a benchmark to be used by building commissioners who wished to bemore environmentally friendly. This effort has been largely successful; by 2006,642 million square feet of building space had achieved LEED certification.3 Thesebuildings have been proven to use significantly less energy and emit less carbondioxide than non-certified buildings. However, with success and expansion havecome new challenges. Because LEED is emerging as a mandated industry standard,it must be re-evaluated; its initial ‘benchmark’ design needs to be adjusted toaccount for builders who may not be as motivated. Furthermore, it needs to be1 National Academy of Sciences. (2008)2 Globally this figure is 10%.3 Housing Commission Documents (2007) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 3
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDmade as effective as possible; despite the increase in LEED certifications, emissionsfrom buildings have, since 1990, continued to grow at about 2.1% a year.41.2 Overview of the LEED Certification Process LEED (2.2) certification is known as a “menu-based system”. Each building-commissioner can choose from a list of projects and items (such as installing on-siterenewable energy facilities or improving insulation) to implement in theconstruction (or renovation) of the building. The building is then awarded points forthese projects/items. With the exception of seven prerequisite requirements (towhich no points are awarded but which must be installed to become LEED certified)and two “special” items (which have a range of attainable credits) all projects/itemsare awarded one point. Depending on the level of points a building receives, varyinglevels of LEED certification are possible. These are as follows.5LEED Certification type Min-Max points necessaryCertified 26-32pointsSilver 33-38pointsGold 39-51pointsPlatinum 52-69points4 McMahon, J.E (2007)5 “LEED for New Construction and Major Renovation.” (2007) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 4
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDAs the table indicates, there are a total of 69 attainable points. The projects/itemsfrom which these points can be earned are organised into 6 different categories.These are: 1. Sustainable sites (1 prerequisite and 14 possible points): This category is designed to focus on the sustainability of buildings by reducing the impact of the buildings to the surrounding environment and by encouraging less environmentally damaging modes of transport. For example, points are awarded for locations close to public transportation. 2. Water Efficiency (5 possible points): This category is included to encourage more efficient use of water and waste treatment. For example, points would be awarded for installing low-flow water fixtures. 3. Energy and Atmosphere (3 prerequisites, 17 possible points, one item with 1-10 point range and one item with 1-3 point range. 4 more items worth 1 point each): This is the largest and most important category and will be the main focus of this paper. This category deals with a variety of issues, ranging from improvements in commissioning (ensuring the building operates as planned), to items dealing with the way the building optimises its energy. The methodology is two-fold; there are points awarded for the use of ‘green’ and on-site renewable energies, as well as points for technologies that reduce emissions and refrigerants. 4. Materials and Resources (1 prerequisite and 13 possible points): This category deals primarily with building maintenance. Its purpose is to encourage the use of sustainable and environmentally friendly materials in Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 5
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED new constructions and renovations. For example, points in this category are awarded for providing on-site recycling facilities. 5. Indoor Environmental Quality (2 prerequisites and 15 possible points): Points in this category are designed to improve health conditions in the building and to reduce indoor pollution. Points are awarded for a range of items; these range from following certain ventilation standards to use of low- emitting substances for interior design (such as more environmentally friendly forms of paint) to windows with better exposure to light and outside views. 6. Innovation and Design (5 possible points): This category awards points to buildings that adhere to certain LEED innovation and design codes, including one for inclusion of LEED certified member(s) on the building-project team.Applicants who wish to become LEED certified can submit an application (by mail oronline) during the design, construction or operational (post-completion) phase ofthe building, after which a panel from USGBC will review the building and award itpoints accordingly. USGBC requires that the building be inspected at least every 5years to maintain certification, but recommends doing so annually. LEED also has slightly different auxiliary versions for specific types ofbuildings. While the general guidelines mentioned above are primarily used forcommercial buildings (which are currently the main LEED adopters). For example,in January 2008 USGBC released a LEED for Homes Rating system that is principallythe same as the general LEED 2.2 but has some modifications to accommodate Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 6
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDspecific factors relevant in residential buildings. The modified point system is asfollows:6As shown in the table, two new categories are added: Location and Linkages andAwareness and Education. Location and Linkages awards points according to wherethe house is built and the access it has to other environmentally friendlyinfrastructures and commuter transport and sources. Awareness and Educationgrants points for educating tenants and building managers on environmentalsustainability.1.3 Benefits of LEED LEED has been linked to both economic and environmental benefits. Severalstudies have shown that LEED buildings are considered more valuable than non-LEED buildings, both in actual property and rental prices. LEED buildings areperceived to be more fashionable among environmentally conscious buyers and6 “LEED for Homes Rating System”. (2008) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 7
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDrenters and this is a reputation component that can add prestige to the building.Because of this and their lower energy costs, LEED buildings command a salespremium of $171 per square foot and a rental premium of $11.28 per square footwhen compared to non-LEED. They also have a 3.8% higher occupancy rate.Perhaps even more importantly, research has also determined that on average aLEED building saves 25-50% in energy, confirming its environmentally friendlierstatus.7 Another possible, albeit less verified, benefit is that certain materials thataward LEED points also tend to increase the life potential of the building, leading tofewer needs of renovation and maintenance8.Finally, it has also been claimed that the work and living environment within LEEDbuildings is healthier and contributes to higher productivity among individualsinside it.9.This is difficult to verify; such conditions are rather difficult to isolate fromother variables.. Nonetheless, it can be reasonably assumed that some healthbenefits are derived from the reduction in toxic substances throughout the building.1.4 Costs of LEED Despite these benefits and increasing enthusiasm for LEED, obstacles toLEED expansion remain. In fact, a large number of LEED projects are frequentlyabandoned or halted before LEED certification is awarded. This is due to increasedconstruction and administrative costs that are difficult to quantify but maydiscourage potential contractors and building commissioners from implementingthe changes needed to obtain LEED certification.7 Turner, C. and Frankel, M. (2008). CoStar. (2007)8 “Green Buildings,”.(2007)“LEED Certification for Buildings”.(2007)9 “LEED Certification Program Leads to Potential Benefits”. (2007) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 8
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED There are, primarily, costs for installing and/or constructing the itemsnecessary to gain LEED points towards certification. Because the LEED system is apoint-based system, these can be a variety of different materials or installations,ranging from types of paint and insulation to different methods of deriving on-siteenergy (such as solar panels). One study estimates these costs to add anywherebetween 2-6% to the initial construction cost of buildings. As mentioned before,LEED buildings sell at a premium that may more than compensate for theseexpenses. However, this is only part of the actual cost of obtaining LEEDcertification. The less quantifiable costs come from increased administrativechallenges. These can be categorised into commissioning,documentation/administrative tasks and energy modelling and design. One studyestimates that energy modelling is not a very significant cost (about 0.1% increasein construction costs), but that the other three categories may increase constructioncosts by 3-5%10. Below is a table explaining this in better detail:10 Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 9
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED Estimate of percentage cost inc. due to LEED 104% 103% 103% 102% 102% Energy Modeling Documentation & Fees 101% Comissioning 101% Design 100% Initial Construction Cost 100% 99% 99% 98% Low Est. Med. Est High. Estsource: Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants. “Analyzing the Cost ofLEED”. < http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.pdf> With these increases in costs, it is ambiguous whether, in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, LEED is profitable to commission. As we will discuss in more detaillater, this is partially due to LEED’s one item one point structure; items that makemore of an environmental and/or economic impact are generally weighted the sameas those who do not. As a result, the benefit for the building is rather difficult tomeasure and the lack of a clear figure and the wide range of equally scored items ofdifferent impact tend to cause prospective commissioners to shy away fromattempting to attain LEED certification. In addition, there is always the issue of Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 10
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDdiscount rates; some of LEED’s benefits, such as reduced energy bills, accrue in thefuture. If consumers place too high of a discount rate on the future, then LEED willnot be profitable. Nevertheless, the existing premium for LEED buildings suggeststhat either this is not the case, or the reputational benefits are enough to overridethe discount.1.5 Need for Life Cycle Focus The above sections discussed near-term costs and benefits of LEED. However,to truly understand the costs and benefits of LEED, it is necessary that weunderstand to understand its impact over an entire building life-cycle. This type ofanalysis is known as the life-cycle approach (LCA) and looks at the benefits andcosts of a LEED building over its entire lifetime, discounted to reveal its true presentvalue. Using LCA, it is possible take into account the item’s production, maintenanceand other costs. Discounting it over its lifetime, meanwhile, will allow for bettercomparison of the item with other alternative opportunities.111.6 Other barriers to LEED expansion/adoption In addition to the above mentioned cost issues, there are also other barriersthat are not measured in direct financial costs For example, obtaining LEEDcertification requires a great deal of time investment. One study concluded that, onaverage, it takes 300 days for a project to become fully certified. Another found thatit took over 225 hours to complete the documentation process. Furthermore,administrative obstacles depend highly on the level of expertise and can cost up to11 Of course what the exact discount rate is, is often subject to debate. 3% is usually an assumed benchmarkfor the long term, with current economic and monetary trends determining more short-term rates. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 11
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED$70,000 per project. This is quite a high opportunity cost as it causes thecommissioner to forego possibly more productive activities.12 Another significant barrier is expertise. Unfortunately, given that LEED isonly a 10 year old concept, a lack of knowledge regarding its codes and practicesexists among the community of architects, engineers and other contractors forbuildings. While this community often has a reasonable base of knowledge inspecific LEED components, there is a lack of cross-functional expertise andcoordination13. Indeed, often a one size fits-all approach is taken, which does nottake into account locational, financial and dimensional difference between differentbuildings. In some ways, this problem will be difficult to rectify without more andbetter training for professionals involved in the construction sector. Nevertheless, interms of LEED implementation, changes can be made to the current regulations inorder to streamline the process. In particular, as mentioned before, the one-itemone-point system is not an effective measure of a building’s environmental andenergy efficiency and does not create the most efficient incentives for obtainingcertification. Furthermore, it bogs down the administrative process. Instead offocusing on high-impact easy to certify components, the one point system shifts thefocus toward more tedious, less consistent items. These inconsistencies compoundthe coordination issues and lower the incentives for learning and adopting thenecessary expertise.12 Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants.Pise, M. N (2006)Johnson, B.T. (2005)13 Johnson, B.T. (2005) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 12
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED1.7 Overview Summary Overall, the LEED system has been shown to have several important benefitsand has expanded accordingly. However, the one item-one point system does notefficiently allocate points. Moreover, direct costs and administrative barriers couldbe reduced to facilitate even greater uptake of LEED certification.SECTION 2: POINT REALLOCATION2.1 Overview As discussed in section 1, LEED encourages a whole-building approach tosustainability by awarding points in five key areas of human and environmentalhealth.14 One of the central performance areas of LEED is energy efficiency, which isrecognized in the Energy and Atmosphere (EA) section of the LEED scorecard.However, there have been critiques of the current LEED EA section15 thatrecommend LEED points need to be allocated based on an overall environmentaland economic impact instead of just an energy savings. The objective of this sectionis to articulate critiques of the LEED point system and suggest improvements thatwill include both economic and environmental impacts.2.2 EA: Credit 1 AllocationAccording to the USGBC, LEED Rating Systems are developed through an open,consensus-based process led by a group of qualified committees.16 The current14 (Energy Star)15 (Tolley and Sabina, April 2009)16 (Energy Star) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 13
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDrating system for the EAc1 section for LEED-NC sets a minimum performancerequirement, based on the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standard. This baseline is thencompared to the percent savings that is calculated using the ASHRAE 90.1-2004appendix G. This quantification system of point allocation based energy savingsdoes provide an overall metric for reducing energy consumption. However, one ofthe biggest critiques of the LEED scorecard is that most items are worth one point17,even though some items have a greater environmental/economic impact. 18. Toillustrate this issue, the following section will compare two energy savingsstrategies that incur the same energy efficiencies, but have very different economicimpact.2.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis 1917 (Chris W. Scheuer , Gregory A. Keoleian)18 (Nancy B. Solomon, AIA)19 (Energy Star Savings Calculator) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 14
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED Summary of Benefits for a Oil FurnaceInitial cost difference $320Life cycle savings $3,955Net life cycle savings (life cycle savings - additional cost) $3,635Simple payback of additional cost (years) 1.0Life cycle energy saved (MMBtu) 319Life cycle air pollution reduction (lbs of CO 2) 51,400Air pollution reduction equivalence (number of cars removed from the road for a year) 4Air pollution reduction equivalence (acres of forest) 6Savings as a percent of retail price 330% Summary of Benefits for 1 Programmable Thermostat(s) Initial cost difference $19 Life cycle savings $2,519 Net life cycle savings (life cycle savings - additional cost) $2,500 Life cycle energy saved (MBTU)-includes both Heating and Cooling 236 Simple payback of additional cost (years) 0.1 Life cycle air pollution reduction (lbs of CO 2) 30,297 Air pollution reduction equivalence (number of cars removed from the road for a year) 3 Air pollution reduction equivalence (acres of forest) 4 Savings as a percent of retail price 2718% One potential modification of LEED would be to take into account theeconomic impact of a given technology over its entire lifecycle. This type of analysisis called Life Cycle Cost analysis, or LCC. For example, according to Energy Star data,both an Energy Star programmable thermostat and an oil furnace are predicted tobe approximately 18 percent more efficient than conventional appliances.20However, these two technologies should not be assumed to be equal; when their LifeCycle Costs (LCC) are compared side by side, there is a significant differencebetween their economic impacts. For example, the Energy Star graphs above calculate the Life Cycle Cost of anefficient furnace by first, taking the cost difference between an Energy Star furnaceand a conventional furnace. Then, this difference of $320 is discounted by the rate of4% over a 17-year life span. The final calculation for the Energy Star furnace is a20 (Energy Star Calculator) The 18% was calculated by finding the percent reduction in BTU’s of both technologies. These numbersare presented on the energy star calculation spreadsheet. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 15
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED330%, dollar savings over the life of the furnace compared to the retail price. On theother hand, with the thermostat, Energy Star assumed a cost difference of $19between a conventional thermostat and an Energy Star thermostat, discounted bythe rate of 4% over a 17-year life span. Ultimately, the Energy Star thermostat, withthe same 18% energy savings s the furnace, results in a 2718% dollar savings inrelation to the retail price. Clearly, these technologies should be provided withdifferent point allocations. However, LEED does not address economic impacts, onlyenergy savings. For LEED to take a more holistic approach the USGBC committeesneed to weight technologies according to the economic impact they produce.Additionally, a more holistic point structure would not only include the economicimpacts but also incorporate energy costs consumed during the life of a technology.2.4 Benefits of Point allocation based on Life Cycle AnalysisA second critique of the LEED EA point system is that the cost savings formula doesnot account for the real energy costs of a given technology; it fails to incorporate theenergy costs of production, transportation, and other steps in the supply chain. Thequantification method for this is called Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). According toBoustead Consulting, the concept of LCA originated in the 1960’s when architectsrealized the importance of examining the performance of industrial systems throughtheir entire life cycle, not just during operation.21 The analysis of a building’s energylife cycle begins with calculating the energy needed to extract raw materials fromthe earth, energy needed to transport the materials, energy needed for operation,and finally the energy needed to dispose of the materials. This has also been21 http://www.boustead-consulting.co.uk/introduc.htm Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 16
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDreferred to as “cradle to grave” analysis.22 LCA is becoming nationally andinternationally more recognized as a best practice model for understanding the totalenvironmental impact of building construction. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with other internationalleaders in energy reduction, has recently placed heavy emphasis on refining andrequiring a decision-making tool based on LCA.23 The reason for this emphasis isthat an implemented building technology, with the intention to reduce energyconsumption, could potentially consume more energy through its entire life cyclethen it will reduce during its operational life. If an analyst is well trained and usingup to date software, LCA is a very reliable method for architects and builders toidentify and manage the total environmental impact of implementing energytechnologies, and is thus a good way to assign LEED points in the EAc1 section. LCA aligns well with sustainability because it addresses one of the main goalsof LEED; reduce a building’s total environmental impact. It also would serve a keyrole in increasing awareness of the true impacts of different technologies. If theLEED EA point system was made more equitable by using output frominterpretation of LCA data, the point system will encourage engineers to gainknowledge about what designs are worth replicating in the long run based howmuch economic and environmental life cycle impact they will have during their life,not just while they are in operation. Since engineers’ recommendations areincorporated into all phases of a building’s lifecycle, not just the design, this22 (Barbara Nebel)23 (Kenneth R. Stone) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 17
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDknowledge would have significant impact.24 Another benefit of LCA is it isolates thetechnologies that will have the highest Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI).EROEI is the ratio of the amount of usable energy gained from a technologycompared to the amount of energy expended to obtain that technology. To increaseits impact and continue its leadership in the green community, LEED should weightpoints based on LCA analysis, incorporating the life cycle energy consumption ofnew technologies into their point structure.2.4 Methods of Calculating LCA There are many high quality Life Cycle Analysis software applications.However, ‘GABI 4’ is one of the most used and recognized applications.25 Other toolsinclude: Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and OtherEnvironmental Impacts (TRACI), developed by EPA26 and Building for Economic andEnvironmental Sustainability (BEES) developed by the U.S. federal government.27All of these computer applications are able to calculate many differentenvironmental and economic outcomes from the entire life cycle of the materialsused in green buildings (see figures 1,2,&3). The software’s data base includes mostcommon building technologies, however if the data you need is not in the data baseit can be entered in the form of an excel spreadsheet. Currently the biggestdrawback of LCA is a lack of databases for the most cutting edge technologies, inaddition to the required training necessary for professionals to interpret thefindings and apply them appropriately. Proponents of LEED should work to24 (Scot W. Horst1, Wayne B. Trusty, MA2)25 (Michael Ivanovich)26 (S. Shyam Sunder, Barbara C. Lippiatt and Jennifer F. Helgeson )27 (Barbara lippiatt / NIST) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 18
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDadvocate for investment in the development of these databases; greater amounts ofknowledge incorporated into LCA analysis will eventually translate into greaterenvironmental gains from LEED certification.2.5 Case Study: LCA costs for a Solar Panel As mentioned in previous section, the current LEED point system onlyincludes the energy savings during the operation of the technology, not during theentire life cycle. According to a resident case study, a Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Panelof 2.5 Kw is estimated to yield a 10% annual energy savings for a house ofapproximately 2500 square feet.28 However, this energy savings does not take intoaccount potential energy used or saved during manufacturing and transportation, ascompared to alternative sources of energy. An example of an LCA GABI softwarequantification of energy used, based on national averages, for the Balance of system(BOS)29 of PV solar panel is shown in Fig. 1. From the chart we see that a total of 542MJ/mw of energy are used during the Life Cycle of the BOS of a PV. For LEED to takethe next steps for implementing a holistic point system the energy needed to create,transport and disposal of the materials should be subtracted from the predictedenergy performance used in calculating the original savings analysis.2.6 Costs of implementing a more sophisticated point system Although LCA would contribute significantly to the efficiency of the LEED point28 (Energy Efficiency Contractor)29 (Vasilis M. Fthenakis and Hyung-Chul Kim) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 19
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDallocation, it comes with its on set of costs. One of these costs is complexity. A moresophisticated LEED point system yields a more accurate environmental impact, butit may not be easily understood by architects and homeowners. Moreover, therewill be costs involved in building the required knowledge base. As mentioned above,the biggest drawback of LCA is a lack of databases for the most cutting-edgetechnologies. In addition, it will be necessary to invest in training to enableprofessionals to interpret the findings and apply them appropriately. However, ifUSGBC committees are able to conduct a complete Economic and Environmentalimpact analysis and equate the LEED point system to these quantifications, USGBCwill move much closer to a fully sustainable green building approach. Ultimately,the benefits of this approach should extend far beyond the initial cost2.7 Recommendation Summary USGBC is continually working toward improving their point system to reflectrelevant environmental impacts. However, the LEED points in the EA section lacknet energy reductions and fail to incorporate economic impacts that accrue over thetechnology life cycle. The next step is for USGBC to create benchmarks based on LCCand LCA that can be applied as a new point LEED structure. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 20
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 21
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDFigure 3 Wali Memon|http |http://walimemon.com Page 22
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDFigure 4: Assumptions for both graphs:Discount Rate Commercial and Residential Discount Rate (real) 4% A real discount rate of 4 percent is assumed, which is roughly equivalent to the nominal discount rate of 7 percent (4 percent real discount rate + 3 percent inflationEnergy Conversions Btus per Gallon of #2 oil 139,000 Btu/gal EIA 2006 Btu per Therm of Gas 100,000 Btu/Therm LBNL 2004Energy Prices 2006 Residential Price of # 2 Oil $2.41 $/gal EIA 2007 2006 Commercial Price of # 2 Oil $2.04 $/gal EIA 2007 2006 Residential Gas Price $1.34 $/therm EIA 2007 2006 Commercial Gas Price $1.17 $/therm EIA 2007Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors Oil CO2 Emission Factor 161.27 lbs CO2 /MMBtu EPA 2007 Gas CO2 Factor 116.97 lbs CO2 /MMBtu EPA 2007Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Annual CO 2 sequestration per forested acre 8,066 lbs CO2 /year EPA 2004 Annual CO 2 emissions for "average" passenger car 11,470 lbs CO2 /year EPA 2004Life Span of 17 years. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 23
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDSECTION 3: LEED AND LABORATORY BUILDINGS; QUANTIFYING THE IMPACTSOF LAB OPERATIONS ON BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE3.1 Background: Energy Performance of LEED Buildings As discussed throughout this paper, a central goal of the LEED system is toachieve energy savings. However, optimal energy savings are not achieved bymerely installing an energy-efficient technology. In the life-cycle energyconsumption of a building, the operation of the building occupies a dominantportion.30 As a result, the success of LEED ultimately relies on the energyperformance of the building after LEED certification. While LEED certification isbased on a point scheme, the effectiveness of LEED as a system should not be judgedby the amount of points achieved, but by the actual energy performance of LEEDbuildings in comparison to average buildings of the same type. Indeed, at firstglance, LEED performs quite well. In 2008, the first comprehensive post-occupancyassessment of LEED-certified buildings was published;31 this study, together with anearlier, smaller-scale similar study, has provided the first evidence of LEED buildingperformance.32 They show that LEED buildings of median energy usage—offices,schools, libraries, etc.—are 25% more energy efficient than non-LEED buildings ofthe same types. These studies also show that, on average, the actual energyperformances of LEED buildings are highly correlated with their design projections.30 Scheuer et al, 200331 Turner and Frankel, 200832 Diamond et al, 2006 Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 24
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDIn Fig. 1, the energy usage intensities of LEED buildings from Diamond et al (2006)and Tuner and Frankel (2008) are shown; for median energy usage buildings, goodcorrelations are shown between design projections and actual measurements. Nevertheless, despite the success of LEED with median energy usagebuildings, these studies also reveal significant discrepancies between design andactual performances in high energy usage buildings, predominantly scientificlaboratories. The actual energy consumptions of these buildings generally exceeddesign projections. Furthermore, their performances show significant inconsistency.In Fig. 1, the energy performance data of laboratory buildings from Diamond et al(2006) and Tuner and Frankel (2008) are also shown. Ultimately, its clear that theunderstanding in this area is lacking.3.2 Current Knowledge in Laboratory Building Energy Performance The causes of the ‘poor’ performances in laboratory buildings are presentlynot fully understood. In presenting their data, Tuner and Frankel (2008) observethat “the characteristics [of laboratory buildings] are not well understood by thedesign community,” and this understanding “has significant implications on[building] life-cycle cost analysis.” They conclude rightly that “there is a need forsignificant additional research into the performance characteristics of [laboratory]buildings” Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 25
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED This need is made even more significant when the high quantities of energyconsumption of laboratories are considered. An extensive study of laboratoryenergy consumptions, covering 4 million sq. ft. of laboratory spaces on fivecampuses of the University of California system, indicates that laboratories onaverage use 5 times more electricity and 5 times more fuel than non-laboratoryspaces.33 The majority of recent literature concurs with this estimation; in particular,the design guide by National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that laboratorybuildings consume 4 to 8 times more energy than non-laboratory buildings. This need to increase understanding of lab building performance is alsomade urgent by the present boom in green laboratory constructions. Driven byincreased consciousness to energy conservation and legislative mandates, andcoinciding with intensified investments in research facilities by researchuniversities, the number of new construction (NC) LEED laboratories hassignificantly increased in the last few years.3.3 Current Status of LEED for Laboratory Buildings As discussed in Section 2, LEED evaluates the energy performance of abuilding quantitatively. The method sets a minimum performance requirement, orbaseline, based on the energy use intensity (EUI) of the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standardfor the energy-efficient design of buildings. Then, the provision in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G is used to demonstrate a percentage improvement over the33 Mills et al, 1996 Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 26
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDbaseline performance for LEED-NC, Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1, optimizeenergy performance (EAc1). This process is used in both projecting buildingperformance during design and in evaluating actual performance after construction.During design, EAc1 credits are awarded based on the percentage of energy savingscalculated from a required computer simulation.34 Given the differences in energy usage, it was recognized that the LEEDscheme for non-laboratory buildings is not suitable for laboratories. In 2005, a taskforce was charged to create a LEED system specifically for laboratory buildings,called LEED Application Guide for Laboratories (LEED-AGL). Nevertheless, progresshas been limited. As of May 2008, these guidelines are yet to be released forimplementation. Presently, practitioners rely on Laboratory for the Twenty-FirstCentury (Labs21), an alternative energy performance benchmark scheme developedby the EPA, for laboratory design (US EPA, 2000). However, there is no officialrelationship between LEED and Labs21; these can lead to coordination issues andsub-optimal evaluation.3.3 Objective of Study: Connecting Operations and Whole-BuildingConsumption To help understand the energy performance of laboratory buildings, weexamine the critical, but so far unexamined, connection between laboratoryoperations and energy consumption at the whole-building level. Specifically, we ask34 The simulation is an hour-by-hour whole building energy analysis using approved software. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 27
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDthe question: To what extent do variations in laboratory operations (in the form ofinstrument plug loads) account for, and therefore potentially explain, the observedvariations in laboratory building energy usage? Ultimately, answering this questionwill help to quantify the contribution of laboratory operations to whole-buildingenergy usage. It will help the design community develop appropriate designstrategies and measurement methodologies, while also facilitating the ongoingdevelopment of LEED-AGL. Finally, it will be critical in helping researchers,technicians, and laboratory building managers to identify energy savingopportunities and adapt energy efficient work practices.3.4 Methods & Data Analysis; Composition and Characteristics of LaboratoryEnergy Loads In order to evaluate LEED performance in lab buildings, it is first necessary tounderstand the energy usage, or “energy load” of this type of building. The energyload of a laboratory building is composed of the building HVAC system, cooling,heating, space lighting, and instrument plug and process loads. Compared to non-laboratory commercial buildings, the HVAC load is significantly larger due to healthand safety regulations, and the plug-in and process loads are also significantly largerbecause of large power requirements of experimental research equipments. Equallyimportantly, laboratory operations do not follow regular schedules like those inoffices and homes; they are instead determined by the need of specific experimentsbeing conducted. As a result, compared to non-laboratory commercial buildings, Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 28
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDenergy consumption of laboratory buildings are often both highly irregular andhighly intense.3.5 Methods & Data Analysis: “Bottom-Up” Approach for EvaluatingLaboratory Energy Usage Given that buildings are integrated systems, building energy consumptionsshould be evaluated at the whole-building level. However, to understand theunderlying causes of energy consumptions, one must begin by looking at individualplug sources, and how they interact with the building system level. Therefore, abottom-up model of energy usage is needed. For this evaluation, we adopt the bottom-up approach of Tanimoto et al(2008). In this approach, bottom-level detailed data on occupant activities,appliances usages and their electric power ratings, and schedule of usage arecollected or estimated. These data are then used as inputs to a model whichcalculates the overall energy usage at the whole building level. This approach isvalidated in that the modeled energy consumptions are in good agreement withactual metered values.3.6 Methods & Data Analysis: Data Collection Data on laboratory instrument types and their electrical power ratings inoperation and stand-by modes was collected from several chemistry, condensed-matter physics, and molecular biology research laboratories at Gordon Center in Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 29
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDMay 2008. Information of laboratory spaces and working schedules was alsocollected from Gordon Center. Additional instrument information was obtainedfrom manufacture specification sheets.3.7 Methods & Data Analysis: Model of an “Average” Laboratory In order to create the model of a broadly representative, sufficiently complexand energy dependent laboratory, we have chosen to “average” a more energyintensive surface physics laboratory and a less energy intensive analytical chemistrylaboratory. The main instruments in the surface physics laboratory are the ultra-high vacuum chamber (UHV) system with associated molecular beam depositiondevices. The main instruments in the analytical chemistry laboratory are thespectrometers and chromatographers. The “average” laboratory is created by takingthe means instrument loads of the two laboratories; common instruments, such asultrasonic cleaner, are then added into the equation.. The instrument details and their loads at the high and low usage conditionsare shown in Table 3.2. The EUI of the average laboratory under high and low usageconditions are calculated by dividing the loads by the floor area of the laboratory, of1,000 sq. ft.; these values are 38.4 and 13.1 kWh/sf (per year), respectively.3.8 Methods & Data Analysis: Energy AnalysisWe must now evaluate how the instrument plug loads summed up from Table 3.1interact with the building HVAC. In order to calculate this interaction, we rely on the Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 30
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDenergy analysis presented for a typical Labs21 laboratory.35 Regardless of theclimate zone of a building, laboratory plug and process loads add to building HVACloads. To evaluate building system loads, we use data extracted from this Labs21model to create a plug intensity vs. building system intensity plot (Fig. 3.2); a linearfit to this plot gives the equation y = 0.18x + 26.1, where x is the plug intensity and yis the system intensity.36 This equation provides the dependence of system intensityon the plug intensity, in kWh/sf (per year). We use this relation to calculate thesystem EUI corresponding to the high and low instrument plug intensities for themodeled average laboratory. Subsequently, a range for the total EUI (instrumentplus building system) is obtained between the high and low usage periods; thisrange is 55.6 kWh/sf, or 190 kBtu/sf. The range in this value represents the intrinsicuncertainty in total laboratory EUI due to variations in laboratory operationsintensities; it is inherent to the nature of the usual practice of scientific research.This range is graphically imposed in dash lines in the design-vs.-measurementintensity plot in Fig. 3.1.3.9 Discussion: Implications in Energy Design Strategies and PerformanceInterpretation This study confirms and quantifies the inherent nature of irregular energyusage in laboratory research operations. Its finding should have significantimplications in laboratory energy performance in both the design and the evaluation35 Enermodal Engineering and NREL, 200336 Enermodal Engineering and NREL, 2003 Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 31
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDphases. For the design phase, the characteristic size of the EUI variation, of 190kBtu/sf as determined for our model, implies that the traditional ‘right sizing’approach to energy savings commonly used for office and apartment buildings isinadequate for laboratory design. Instead, emphasis must be placed onimplementing variable building system capabilities that are capable of adjusting tothe irregular nature of research operations intensities. On the other hand, for building energy performance evaluation, evaluatorsmust recognize that the apparent discrepancies between measured EUI and design-projected EUI might be due to irregularities in laboratory operations intensities andshould not necessarily be attributed to design failure. It is important to note that, inFig. 3.1, if the empirical uncertainty from the non-laboratory building data (wherestatistics are sufficient) is added to the operations-induced uncertainties (y = ±95),most of the laboratory data points would indeed fall within this uncertainty fromthe y = x line.In addition to instrument loads, variations in other laboratory end-use loads notconsidered in this analysis may also contribute, although usually to a less extent, tochanges in whole-building EUI; these include lighting schedule, occupancy, and thehabit of operating the laboratory fume hood (discussed in further detail below).Ultimately, any evaluation mechanism must be able to adjust to variations ininstrument usage. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 32
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED3.10 Discussion: Savings-Weighted LEED Point Allocation; A Case Study of theFume HoodThe present study also has implications in rational LEED point allocation. Toencourage variable building system measures that can adjust to frequent irregularactivity demands, LEED points should be awarded to implementing adjustable HVACsavings measures. To illustrate this point, we use the example of the fume hood, adominant HVAC component that directly interfaces with laboratory spaces andactivities. On average, a fume hood consumes over 450 MBtu of energy (2.5 timesthat of a home) and has an annual operations cost of over $5,000.37 Already, high-performance fume hood has been identified as an item for LEED point allocation.However, present LEED schemes fall short of correlating point quantities to theamounts of energy saved by a measure, an area in which improvement has beenexhibited.38In general, fume hood energy savings are achieved by reducing air flow volumeduring inactive periods, which statistically account for most of the hours of a day.Two EPA Labs21-recommended measures serve this purpose—(1) closing downhood sash window with an automatic sash controller (ASC), and (2) reducing hoodfan power with a variable air volume (VAV) system. Fig. 3.3a and 3.3b show fumehood energy usages as a function of sash opening height at constant fan powers, andenergy usages as a function of fan power at constant sash heights. These calculations37 Mills et al 199638 Tolley and Shaikh, 2008 Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 33
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDare done using a model developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory andare for the climate of Chicago.39 Based on Fig. 3.3a and 3.3b, energy savings fromreducing sash height from 6 inch to 0.25 inch using ASC and from reducing fanpower from 1.8 W/cfm to 0.8 W/cfm using VAV are calculated and shown in Table 2.Also shown is a comparative life-cycle economic cost-benefits analysis for ASC andVAV.As a further demonstration of this principle, Table 2 also illustrates saving-weightedLEED point allocations proportional to the size of benefits. These point allocationsare done at three, increasingly broad economic levels—(1) based on energy savingsonly, (2) based on net cost benefits, and (3) based on net cost benefits plus thebenefits of reductions in carbon emission. In this particular example, if we werecalculating LEED points based on energy savings alone, reducing the sash heightalone would be worth 1 point, while reducing the fan power would be worth .4points. However, if we took into account net cost benefits and the reductions incarbon emissions, reduction in fan power would only be worth 1/10 of the 1 pointthat should be awarded to reducing the sash height. Hence, this savings-weightedpoint allocation method inherently spells out the relative efficiencies among theeligible measures. It serves to steer consumers toward the best measure and stillretains a reasonable simplicity for practical implementation.In summary, using instrument power and laboratory operations data, we haveshown that variations in laboratory operations induce an uncertainty in whole-39 Mills and Sartor, 2006 Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 34
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDbuilding energy usage intensity that is of the order of 200 kBtu/sf. This findingimplies the importance of employing variable system measures for energy savings.The principle of savings-weighted LEED point allocations for variable savingsmeasures has also been demonstrated with the case of fume hood.CONCLUSIONThe LEED standard has accomplished a great deal; despite the oft-heard criticismsthe pioneers of LEED should be commended for their efforts to develop astandardized evaluation mechanism for green buildings. Undoubtedly, these effortshave led to dramatic reduction in energy usage and emissions within certifiedbuildings. Nevertheless, as LEED evolves from a general benchmark into a morewidespread mandate, two critical changes should be made: 1) the point systemshould take into account relative energy savings across the entire life cycle of agiven technology and 2) a modified LEED evaluation system should be developed forenergy-intensive/lab buildings; this system should be developed using savingsweighted point allocations that award points for variable savings measures. Oneissue not directly addressed in our paper, but that still needs a great deal ofconsideration, is quantifying and weighting LEED points based on green house gasemission from both building materials and new technologies. Ultimately, if theserecommendations are adopted, LEED certification will allow commissioners aroundthe world to more efficiently build toward a better future. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 35
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDACKNOWLEDGEMENTWe thank C. Turner of the New Buildings Institute for providing data referenced inTurner and Frankel (2008).SECTION 1 REFERENCESSection 1 ReferencesCoStar (2007). “Commercial Real Estate and the Environment”. <http://www.costar.com/partners/costar-green-study.pdf >Johnson, B.T. (2005). “Barriers to Certification for LEED Registered Project. <http://www.ibe.colostate.edu/projects/theses/johnson_thesis.pdf(2007) “Green Buildings, LEED certification proves cost-effective, ready to expand”. <http://sbt.siemens.com/customerlounge/whatsnew/press.249.asp>(2007) “LEED Certification for Buildings”. <http://www.epa.gov/perftrac/members/Summary_LEEDs.htm>(2007) “LEED Certification Program Leads to Potential Benefits”. <http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/leed-program-leads-to-potential- profits-51367.aspx>(2008) “LEED for Homes Rating System”. <http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3638>(2005) “LEED for New Construction and Major Renovation.” <http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1095>McMahon, J.E. “Chapter 9”. The First state of the Carbon Cycle Report http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/final-report/sap2-2- final-chapter9.pdfNational Academy of Sciences. 2008. “What you need to know about Energy”.Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants. 2003. “Analyzing the Cost of LEED”. < http://www.cleanair- coolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.pdf> Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 36
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDPise, M. N. 2006. “LEED Documentation Process: Implementation Barriers for School Projects”. <http://www.chple.arch.vt.edu/CHPLE%20Research%20files/ETD_Madhuli ka.pdf>Turner, C. and Frankel, M. “Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings”. New Buildings Institute Report (2008).SECTION 2 REFERENCESDudley, Chris. Real Energy “How does renewable energy change the way we dothings?”.(2008).http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/eroie.htmlEnergy Efficiency Contractor. Residential Case Study. (2003)http://www.evnut.com/solar.htmEnergy Star. Saving Calculators. (2007).http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=furnaces.pr_furnaceEPA. System Analyst Reseach. (2007).http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/First Environment. “Life Cycle Assessment Case Study:BEES Software”.http://www.firstenvironment.com/html/lca_and_bees.htmlFthenakis .Vasilis M. and Hyung-Chul Kim. PV EH&S Research CenterBrookhaven National Laboratory. “Life Cycle Analysis of Photovoltaic Systems”.Horst1, Scot W. and Wayne B. Trusty, MA2. “Integrating LCA Tools in LEED: FirstSteps”.Ivanovich, Micheal. Engineering Innovation. (2007).Lippiatt, Barbara. NIST. Office of Applied Economics. (2007)www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.htmlNebel, Barbara. White Paper – “Life CycleAssessment And The Building And Construction industry”. (2006).Scheuer , Chris W. and Gregory A. Keoleian. “Evaluation of LEED UsingLife Cycle Assessment Methods”. (2002).Solomon, Nancy B. AIA. Green Sources Magizine. McGraw Hill construction (2008) Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 37
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDhttp://archrecord.construction.com/features/green/archives/0506edit-3.aspStone, Kenneth R. What EPA Means When it Says, "Life Cycle Assessment". (2007)Sunder, S. Shyam, Barbara C. Lippiatt and Jennifer F. Helgeson“NIST Metrics and Tools for Tall and Green Buildings”. (2008).The Free Dictionary. Definition of EROEI. (2008).http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Energy+returned+on+energy+investedTolley, G.S. and S.L. Shaikh. The greening of buildings. “RFF Weekly Policy”Commentary. (2008).U.S Department of Energy. Building Energy Software Tools. Directory. (2008)U.S Department of Housing and Urban development BD&C LCA .White paper, “FinalReport Assessing Their Applicability to the Home Building IndustryLife Cycle Assessment Tools to Measure Environmental Impacts”.Working Group B (LCA Methodology); Interim Report #1. “ Integrating LCA intoLEED”. (November 2006).SECTION 3 REFERENCESDiamond, R., M. Optiz, T. Hicks, B. Von Neida, and S. Herrera, Evaluating the energyperformance of first-generation LEED-certified commercial buildings. Proceedingsof ACEEE Summer Study of Energy Efficiency in Buildings (2006).Enermodal Engineering and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Laboratoriesfor the 21st Century: Energy Analysis. Department of Energy Report DOE/GO-102003-1694 (2003).Mills, E., G. Bell, D. Sartor, A. Chan, D. Avery, M. Siminovitch, S. Greenberg, G. Marton,A. de Almeida, and L.E. Lock, Energy efficiency in California laboratory-type facilities.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-39061 (1996).Mills, E. and D. Sartor, Energy use and savings potential for laboratory fume hoods.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-55400 (2006). Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 38
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDSartor, D. and M.A. Piette, W. Tschudi, and S. Fok, Strategies for energybenchmarking in cleanrooms and laboratory-type facilities. Proceedings of ACEEESummer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (2000).Scheuer, C., G.A. Keoleian, and P. Reppe. Life cycle energy and environmentalperformance of a university building: Modeling challenges and design implications.Energy and Buildings 35, 1049 (2003).Tanimoto, J., A. Hagishima, and H. Sagara, Validation of methodology for utilitydemand prediction considering actual variations in inhabitant behavior schedules.Journal of Building Performance Simulation 1, 31 (2008).Tolley, G.S. and S.L. Shaikh. The greening of buildings. RFF Weekly PolicyCommentary. April 14, 2008.Turner, C/ and M. Frankel, Energy performance of LEED for new constructionbuildings. New Buildings Institute Report. Also sourced in personalcommunications (2008).U.S. EPA Federal Energy Management Program, Laboratories for the 21st century:An introduction to Low-energy design (2000). Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 39
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDTABLE 1. Laboratory instruments and their powers and loads during high and lowusage conditions. Devices Power Low Usage High Usage Maximum Load Load (Resting) (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) (W)General Instruments Refrigerator (40) 350 350 Freezer 1,000 320 320 Oven 1,400 525 525 Balance 240 10 85 Stirrer 1,300 100 1,000 Ultrasonic cleaner 150 40 85 Computers (4) 280 60 300 Hood lighting 160 0 450 Glove box-Lighting 80 0 220 Glove box-Freezers (2) 2,000 640 640 Glove box-Pumps (3) 900 250 3,150 Total 2,295 7,125Ultra-High Vacuum Facility Mechanical pump 300 250 1,050 Diffusion pump 9,000 5,700 20,000 Turbo molecular pump 20,000 12,000 24,000 Chiller 2,600 0 1,350 Heater (for baking) (6) 300 0 2,400 Effusion cell 600 75 290 Sample manipulator 2,000 240 960 Gas injector 1,000 120 480 Evaporation source bias 30 4 15 Evaporation filament 1,000 120 480 Lighting (3) 180 20 85 Voltmeter 24 0 11 Total 18,529 51,121Analytical Chemistry Facility HPLC-Temperature controller 960 0 850 HPLC-Pump 220 95 1,050 HPLC-Chromatographer 180 77 155 HPLC-Degasser 35 0 30 Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 40
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEED Mass spectrometer 16,000 3,850 13,800 Bio-safety cabinet 1,600 1,300 1,300 Centrifuge 1,500 0 1,300 Total 5,322 18,485 Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 41
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDTABLE 2. Comparisons of automatic sash controller (ASC) and variable air volumesystem (VAV) as two energy savings measures for a fume hood. All savings valuesare calculated with respect to operations parameters of sash height and fan power,(H, P) = (6in, 1.8 W/cfm), 24/7 and per annum.Energy Savings Measures Reducing Sash Reducing Fan Both Height (H) Power (P)Required Devices; Cost Automatic Variable Air ASC and Sash Volume VAV; $2,500 Controller; System; $1,000 $1,500Operations Parameters (H, P) (0.25in, (6in, (0.25in, 1.8W/cfm) 0.8W/cfm) 0.8W/cfm)Energy Savings 5,765 kBtu 2,263 kBtu 5,860 kBtuLEED Points Based on Energy 1 0.4 1SavingsEnergy Cost Savings $1,034 $189 $1,042Present Value of Life-Time $10,065 $1,839 $10,139Energy Cost Savings (Life, 15years; Discount Rate, 5%)Net Benefits $8,565 $839 $7,639LEED Points Based on Net 1 0.1 0.9BenefitsFuel Savings 72 MBtu 0 72 MBtuCarbon Emissions Due to Fuel 3,420 lb 0 3,420 lbCarbon Cost Savings (CCX rate) $36 0 $36Present Value of Life-Time $350 0 $350Carbon Cost Savings (15 years;5%)Net Benefits Plus Carbon Cost $8,915 $839 $7,989Savings Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 42
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDLEED Points Based on Net 1 0.1 0.9Benefits Plus Carbon CostSavingsFigure1. Correlation plots between design and actual energy usage intensities fornon-laboratory buildings (blue) and laboratory buildings (red). The dash linesindicate the upper and lower limits of a variation of 190 kBtu/sf in laboratoryenergy intensity due to variations in laboratory activities (see text). Raw data arefrom Diamond et al (2006) and Turner and Frankel (2008). Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 43
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDFigure 2. Building system EUI caused by laboratory plug and process EUI, based ona laboratory model in Enermodal Engineering and NREL (2003). Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 44
    • January15, 2009 Building on LEEDFigure 3a. Dependences of fume hood energy usage on fan powers at constant sashheights.Figure 3b. Dependences of fume hood energy usage on sash heights at constant fanpowers. Wali Memon|http://walimemon.com Page 45