Energy refurbishment of the R82 factory

Energetic refurbishment of
R82’s industrial unit

INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECT
Supervisor: Søren Alrø Skovbo

Students:
David Canosa Vaamonde
Martín Amado Pousa
Miguel Salgado Pérez
Pedro Rico López

CONTENT
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3
2. The main report ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.
INSULATION SOLUTION. ............................................................................................. 8
2.1.1.
Wall insulation construction ................................................................................... 8
2.1.2.
Roof insulation solution ....................................................................................... 11
2.1.3.
Basement floor insulation solution....................................................................... 12
2.1.4.
Results ................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.
WINDOWS SOLUTION. .............................................................................................. 15
2.3.
DOORS SOLUTION. ................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1.
Energy Savings ................................................................................................... 19
2.4.
HEATING SYSTEM SOLUTION.................................................................................. 22
2.4.1.
Building 1 ............................................................................................................. 23
2.4.2.
Building 2 ............................................................................................................. 30
2.5.
PV CELLS SOLUTION ................................................................................................ 34
2.5.1.
Design and Photo-Voltaic Solar Systems elected ............................................... 35
2.5.2.
Technical information about solar panels ............................................................ 38
2.5.3.
Calculation of the power energy with PV Cells ................................................... 39
2.5.4.
Results ................................................................................................................. 42
3. Economic analysis ...................................................................................................... 45
3.1.
INSULATION. .............................................................................................................. 44
3.1.1.
Insulation budget ................................................................................................. 44
3.1.1.
Financial analysis ................................................................................................ 46
3.2.
WINDOWS. ................................................................................................................. 47
3.2.1.
Windows budget .................................................................................................. 47
3.2.1.
3.3.
DOORS. ...................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.1.
Doors budget ....................................................................................................... 50
3.3.1.
3.4.
HEATING SYSTEM SOLUTION.................................................................................. 53
3.4.1.
Heating system budget ........................................................................................ 53
3.4.1.
3.5.
PV CELLS SOLUTION. ............................................................................................... 56
3.5.1.
PV cells budget .................................................................................................... 56
3.5.1.
4. Problem solving .......................................................................................................... 61
4.1.
FINAL SOLUTION DAVID CANOSA ................................................................................ 60
4.2.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 61
4.2.1.
Final solution budget ........................................................................................... 61
4.2.1.
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 66
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.

ECONOMIC CRITERIA ............................................................................................... 65
ENVIROMENTAL CRITERIA ...................................................................................... 65
PUBLIC IMAGE OF THE COMPANY .......................................................................... 66

6. Literature ....................................................................................................................... 69
7. Group work methodology............................................................................................ 70
8. Plans .............................................................................................................................. 71

Interdisciplinary Project: Energetic refurbishment of the R82’s industrial unit

ABSTRACT
This project emerges as a proposal of R82 to reduce the energy consumption, save
money and improve the public image of the company.
The company’s factory is an old building placed in Gedved (Denmark) which energy
consumption is quite high due to obsolete constructive solutions and systems that are
not adapted to contemporaneity.
In this context we have analyzed deeply the problem coming to the conclusion that the
main problems in the factory are in the envelope of the building, the heating system
and the wastage of renewable energies.
We have analyzed several options trying to reduce energy consumption;
-

Increasing of insulation.

-

Change of windows and doors.

-

Heating system improvements.

-

PV cells plant installation.

Besides these factors, the other criterion, and actually the most important of them, is
the economic feasibility of the solutions. Due to saving money is the real purpose of the
company, there will only be accepted the economically profitable solutions and all the
other will be rejected.
Finally we adopted two solutions, the heating system improvement (heat recovery
system) and the PV cells plant.

Page 1 of 70


1.

INTRODUCTION:

This project is based on R82 buildings. This company is located a few kilometers north
from Horsens (Denmark). (view Plan 01 – Situation)

The main purpose of the project is to improve the energetic efficiency of R82 company
buildings and try to design and adapt new renewable energy systems.
At the same time we would like to know how far the renewable energy systems can
save sources and money and how long it would take to depreciate this investment.
The company R82 proposes a project to let them being more respectful with the
environment as well as save money.
This proposition suggests us the next questions:
-

What can we change to be more respectful with the environment?

-

How much time do they need to recover the initial investment?

-

How can reduce the energy consumption?

Page 2 of 70


The factory is divided in two different buildings because each one has an independent
heating system composed by a gas boiler and a fan coils heating system. The big one,
“Building 1” has a factory area, a canteen area and an office area. The small one,
“Building 2” has a factory area and an office area.

Building 1
-

Factory area

-

Office area

-

Canteen area

3792 m

2

Building 2
-

Factory area

-

Office area

2476 m

2

After visiting the factory and researching the information provided by the company, we
introduced all this information in BE10 software and we have obtained these results:

Page 3 of 70


Building 1

Page 4 of 70


Building 2

Page 5 of 70


Taking into account these results, we came to the conclusion that the critical points are:
−

Insulation: The factory has two kinds of external walls, one for the factory and
canteen enclosure and the other for the office one and one kind of roof and
basement floor for all the building. All these elements have a relatively high
conductivity that involves high heat losses.

−

Windows and doors: At the present time the external carpentry of the factory
is quite old and, like in the walls, roof and ground floor, the high conductivity of
these windows and doors supposes a wasting of energy and money.

−

Heating system: The heating system is composed by a gas boiler connected
to fan coils that provides hot air to all the building. This kind of system
consumes a high amount of gas and furthermore it has huge heat losses
because of the ventilation system. This ventilation system doesn’t have a heat
recovery so here we have the main source of energy wasting in the buildings.

−

Electricity consumption: The building electricity consumption is quite high and
it doesn’t take advantage of renewable energies. In our opinion this point can
be improved.

−

Water consumption: Before knowing how the company works and their
activities we thought that they consume a high volume of water and we were
thinking to design a system that exploits the rain water accumulated in the roof
for industrial purposes and it was reflected in the project description as many
hours of work. Once analyzed the working process in this factory we realized
that they don’t have water consumption for industrial purposes, this means that
they only have water consumption for sanitary appliances in bathrooms. Finally
we change our minds about doing something for this part of the project because
the consumption is going to be really low. The hours that were going to be
invested in this system are now restructured in other topics.

Page 6 of 70


To achieve this target we are going to analyze some different solutions based on;
insulation improvement, optimization of the heating system and a reduction in the
electricity consumption.
-

For the insulation improvement, we are going to research a solution for the
external wall, the roof and the basement floor. The conductivity of these
elements would be reduced and it would affect directly reducing the heating
demand and generating an energy saving. The money savings are going to be
estimated. Taking into account the initial investment we will know if these are
ECONOMICALLY PROFITABLE solutions.

-

In regard to heating system, each building has a fan coil heating system
supplied by a gas boiler. We have designed a heat recovery system that
extracts energy from the exhaust air ventilation instead of throwing it away.
Then, we use this energy in a heat pump to heat again the building saving a lot
of energy and money reducing the gas consumption.

-

Finally, in order to reduce the electricity consumption, we have designed a PV
cells plan projecting a steal construction to cover the outside parking. The PV
panels will be situated above the awnings that we have design. The amount of
energy produced by the solar panels will be discounted into the bill obtaining a
return on investment.

Page 7 of 70


2.

THE MAIN REPORT - PROBLEM SOLVING:

2.1. INSULATION SOLUTION.
2.1.1. Wall insulation construction
In the actual buildings we have high U-Values for the walls so we decided that it will be
an option to increase the insulation thickness by adding an extra layer.
To reduce the conductivity we have selected a freestanding structure of gypsum board
with mineral wool inside. This system is perfect both for the offices and the factory to
be able to install it even until 10m of height.

Page 8 of 70


The actual walls of the buildings:
Office wall:

100mm Brick
150mm Insulation
100mm Brick
20mm Plaster

U-value:o,185 W/(m²K)
Factoy wall:

2 mm Metal sheet
150mm Insulation
16mm Gypsumboard

U-value:0,211 W/(m²K)

Page 9 of 70


New solution: with double Gypsum board 24mm + 100 or 150 mm of insulation
Office wall:

100mm Brick
150mm Insulation
100mm Brick
20mm Plaster
100 mm Insulation
24mm Gypsumboard

U-value:0,115 W/(m²K)
Factoy wall:

2 mm Metal sheet
150mm Insulation
16mm Gypsumboard
150 mm Insulation
24mm Gypsumboard

U-value: 0,102 W/(m²K)

Page 10 of 70


2.1.2. Roof insulation solution
To improve the roof insulation we have decided to install the system Roofmate LG-X
from Styrofoam, this is a lightweight insulation. It is composed of prefabricated
insulation boards with a 10mm surface of modified mortar topping.
The reasons because we have chosen this system are:
-

The

factory

calculated

roof

to

is

not

support

too

much weight and this system
is very light. The boards have
a low weight about 16 kg/m².
-

The

insulation

material

is

polystyrene foam (XSP) with
low

conductivity

λ=0,029

W/m2K.
-

There are several thicknesses
from 40 mm to 120mm. All of
these boards include mortar topping of 10mm thickness to give it a nice
finish.

-

Easy and fast to install.

Installation
-

The boards are placed directly over
the

waterproof

layer

and

the

connection between boards does not
need any mortar, it´s done dovetailing
each other.
-

In the perimeter the boards have to be ballasted with concrete block of
600x600x50mm to reduce the uplift forces of wind on the insulation.

Page 11 of 70


For the drainage or ventilation connections, the
pieces of boards will be cut to allow the pass of the
ducts and ballasted same that the perimeter.

2.1.3. Basement floor insulation solution
Currently, the basement floor of the building is composed by 150 mm of grave, 50 mm
of insulation and 120 mm of concrete.
The conductivity of this basement floor solution is 0,512 W/m² K, which is relatively
high.
The initial intention was propose a solution that improves the insulation, but we came to
the conclusion that changing the basement floor is not a ECONOMICALLY
PROFITABLE for the next reasons:
-

Any solution for the basement floor improvement is not cheap and the savings
generated are relatively low.

-

Inside the factory there are heavy machinery and stored products and moving
it would suppose many hours of skilled labor which would increase hugely the
initial investment.

-

For doing the work would be necessary closing the factory for many weeks
and it would involve monetary losses.

-

As a last point, the heating flow goes up, for this reason the main heating
losses are produced in the external wall and in the roof.

Page 12 of 70


2.1.4. Results
With this new insulation the heating requirement of the buildings will be lower because
the conductivities of the walls and roof will be also lower.
For the Building 1 here we can see the new energy requirements with the extra
insulation:

With the extra insulation the energy saving will be:
Saving = 536,64 – 477,31 = 59,33 MWh/year

Page 13 of 70


For the Building 2 here we can see the new energy requirements with the extra
insulation:

Saving = 356,66 – 309,90 = 46,76 MWh/year

The annual heating requirement decreases from 536,64 to 477,31 Mwh per year in
building 1 and from 356,66 to 309,90 Mwh per year in building 2.
The total energy savings for the two buildings will be:
Total savings = 106,09 MWh/year

Page 14 of 70


2.2. WINDOWS SOLUTION.
One of the critical points in heat losses are the
windows due to its high conductivity in relation with
the external wall (view Plan 03 – Elevations). At the
present time the factory has aluminum windows with
two

glazing

and

without

thermal

break.

The

2

conductivity is 1,80 W/m K that is quite high compared
with modern windows.
The best solution to solve the problem is to change
the windows for new ones with a higher quality and
trying to get the best value for money.
The chosen windows are aluminum windows with 3-layer energy glazing and thermal
break. Their conductivity is 0,80 W/m2K and the conductivity for the joint with the
external wall is 0,85 W/m2K.
Adding the changes in the windows in BE10 software we obtain the next results:

Page 15 of 70


For the Building 1 here we can see the new energy requirements with the new
windows:

With the new windows the energy saving will be:
Saving = 536,64 – 520,79 = 15,85 MWh/year

Page 16 of 70


For the Building 2 here we can see the new energy requirements with the new
windows:

Saving = 356,66 – 339,91 = 16,75 MWh/year

As we can see the heating requirements in the building 1 have decreased from 536,64
to 520,79 Mwh per year and in the building 2 from 356,66 to 339,91 Mwh per year.


Page 17 of 70


2.3. DOORS SOLUTION.
The R82 buildings have 9 big doorways for the trucks that come and go on the factory.
We have old automatic doors but with a very thin layer of insulation and we want to
change those for a new ones with a lower U-Value. With a new well insulated and
faster ones, the energy loses will decrease and it will take less time and energy to heat
the building.
The actual U-Value of these doors is U=1,50 W/m2K and we want to change those for a
new ones with a lower U-Value=0,80 W/m2K.
There are 5 big doors of 24m2 (4x6m)
and 4 smaller doors 16m2 (4x4m).
These doors are made by sandwich
panels of 40mm width and 610mm
height. The panel is made of prepainted galvanized steel sheet and
polyurethane foam (40kg/mᶟ) inside.

Page 18 of 70


2.3.1. Energy Savings
We have 9 doors;
Type 1: 5 doors 4*6m Type 1 area= 120m2
Total área = 184 m

2

Type 2: 4 doors 4*4m Type 2 area= 64m2
U-Value actual doors

= 1,5

/

U-Value new doors

= 0,80

/

Energy loses through the doors:
= 1, ,50 ∗ 184 = 276,0
= 0,80 ∗ 184 = 147,2

/
/

R82 buildings are situated in Gedved so Gt (degree hour) will be;
= 89

ℎ/

Ø = 276,0 ∗ 89 = 24564,0

ℎ/

Ø = 147,2 ∗ 89 = 13100,8

ℎ/

Energy difference (how much we will save)
Ø −Ø =

!, "#$/%

With these new doors the heating requirement of the buildings will be lower because
the conductivities will be also lower.

Page 19 of 70


For the Building 1 here we can see the new energy requirements with the new doors:

With the new doors the energy saving will be:
Saving = 536,64 – 530,97 = 5,67 MWh/year

Page 20 of 70


For the Building 2 here we can see the new energy requirements with the new doors:

With the new doors the energy saving will be:
Saving = 356,66 – 350,92 = 5,74 MWh/year


Page 21 of 70


2.4. HEATING SYSTEM SOLUTION.
In order to reduce the gas consumption, we have designed a heat recovery system that
extracts energy from the exhaust air ventilation instead of throwing it away.
Then, we use this energy in a water to water heat pump connected with the existing
heating system (view Plan 04 – Heating system installation).

Page 22 of 70


2.4.1. Building 1
2.4.1.1. Heat exchanger

●

Airflow:
-

-

&'( =

)*+*, ∗-.∗/01
21 ∗3
=>?@ A@
,

) ,4 5+4,4 56∗4,64.∗ 47 *8∗9:;6,5<∗

&'(

<B,

C
∗)
DE F

4G B5.H

6,79 I/J

●

Total energy of the exhaust air:
-

-

K(

&'( ∗

QM

6,79

NO
P

(
NQ

∗ 34,81 NO

270 R

Page 23 of 70


●

Energy extracted by the recovery system:

Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

Page 24 of 70


t1 = 20 ºC

t2 = 10,9 ºC (t after heat exchanger - Exhausto)

φ1 = 40%

φ1 = 43%

P1 = 1,013*105 Pa

P2 = 1,013*105 + 1500 Pa= 1,028*105 Pa

h1 = 34,81 kJ/kg

h2 = 18,47 kJ/kg

∅TU

V'( ∗ |

∅TU

6,79 ∗ |18,47

∅XY

"Z/[

∅XY,]%^

|

__, _ "#

34,81|
"#

Because we have a large building the circuit will be very long, that’s why we estimate a
20% of heat losses.
If we deliver 88,8 kW to the heat pump evaporator and in the air we had 270 kW, this
means that we recover 33% of the heat.

Page 25 of 70


2.4.1.2. Heat pump

We have selected a Danfoss heat pump:

Page 26 of 70


We will use a heat pump with a COP = 3,5
àb

cd` ∗ `Te
cd` − 1

àb =

3,5 ∗ 88,8
3,5 − 1

àb = 124,3
Kab/fg8h = 124,3
Kab/fg8h = 290862

∗ 2340ℎ/ij k
ℎ/ij k = 291 l ℎ

We will use 3 heat pumps of 42kW = 126kW > 124,3Kw

Page 27 of 70


The heat pumps are connected to the heat recovery system loop and to the heat
accumulator. The heat pumps contribute with the 52,1% of the heating demand.

Evaporator: P = 29,6 kW
Compresor: P = 12,4 kW
Condenser: P = 42 kW
COP = 3,39

Page 28 of 70


2.4.1.3. Energy savings

Building heating demand = 536,64 MWh/year

Heat Pump production = 291 MWh/year

Heat Exchanger power = 0,80 x 111kW (20% of heat losses) = 88,8 kW
Heat Exchanger production (free energy) = 88,8 kW x 2340 h/year = 208 MWh/year

Energy saving = 38,75%

2.4.1.4. Results

The heat pump implementation in the building 1 involves the next results:

The annual heating requirement decreases from 180,40 to 145,80 Kwh/m2, it means a
drop of 34,6 Kwh/m2.

Page 29 of 70


2.4.2. Building 2
2.4.2.1. Heat exchanger

●

Airflow:

&'(

●

Total energy of the exhaust air:

mn

●

4,37 I/J

o "#

Energy extracted by the recovery system:

∅XY

p , o "Z/[

p , o "#

Page 30 of 70


Because we have a large building the circuit will be very long, that’s why we estimate a
20% of heat losses.
∅XY,]%^

op, "#

If we deliver 57,2 kW to the heat pump evaporator and the air has 152 kW, this means
that we recover 37,6% of the heat.

2.4.2.2. Heat pump:

We have selected the same Danfoss heat pump:

We will use a heat pump with a COP= 3,5
`ab

80,1

Kab/fg8h

187l

We will use 3 heat pumps of 42kW = 84 kW > 80,1 kW

Page 31 of 70


The heat pumps are connected to the heat recovery system loop and to the heat
accumulator. The heat pumps contribute with the 52,1% of the heating demand.

Evaporator: P = 29,6 kW
Compresor: P = 12,4 kW
Condenser: P = 42 kW
COP = 3,13

Page 32 of 70


2.4.2.3. Energy savings

Building heating demand = 356,66 MWh/year

Heat Pump production = 187 MWh/year

Heat Exchanger power = 0,80 x 71,5 kW (20% of heat losses) = 87,2 kW
Heat Exchanger production (free energy) = 57,2 kW x 2340 h/year = 134 MWh/year

Energy saving = 37,57 %

2.4.2.4. Results

The heat pump implementation in the building 1 involves the next results:

The annual heating requirement decreases from 171,50 to 141,50 Kwh/m2, it means a
drop of 30,00 Kwh/m2.

Page 33 of 70


2.5. PV CELLS SOLUTION.
We thought that the best solution to reduce electrical consumption is to build a
photovoltaic solar plant in the parking plot next to R82 buildings.
The panels will be situated above the awnings that we have design. The electrical
energy generated by this installation will be injected into the distribution network. The
amount of energy produced by the solar panels will be discounted into the bill obtaining
a return on investment.
We also studied to put the installation over the roof but the structure of the factory is
not calculated to support the weight of the photovoltaic frame.

This has been an

inconvenient because the area of the roof is bigger than the outdoor parking limiting the
energy production (view Plan 02 – Photovoltaic cells plant). Although exist other kind
of photovoltaic panels without frame and low weight but we rejected this solutions
because the direction of the company R82 have preferred not to install it.

Parking

The parking has 1840 m² and its orientation is North-East

Page 34 of 70


2.5.1. Design and Photo-Voltaic Solar Systems elected
To obtain the biggest quantity of solar panels and parking spaces we designed a
structure that is able to shelter 72 parking spaces, 18 of these are external, and 288
solar panels.
The name of the commercial house is SunPower and was elected because it offers
more efficiency and performance than other commercial houses. The kind of solar
panel elected is the model SPR-E20-435-COM and the nominal power 435W per
panel.
The panel has a South orientation and a slope of 40º that takes advantage of the
largest possible solar radiations.

Page 35 of 70


Aerial view before the construction of the PV cells plan.

Aerial view after the construction of the PV cells plan.

Page 36 of 70


North-west view of the PV cells plan.

South-east view of the PV cells plan.

Page 37 of 70


2.5.2. Technical information about solar panels

Page 38 of 70


2.5.3. Calculation of the power energy with PV Cells
We use the program PVGIS to do the calculations. This program gives you the amount
of energy that can be generated anywhere in Europe and in surrounding regions. This
calculation is based on data of the sun's energy, the geographical distribution and
different
types of terrain across Europe, as well as a thorough analysis of available photovoltaic
technologies.
The data introduce in this program for calculate are:
-

Location of the photo voltaic plant: Gedved, Denmark

-

The technology of the cell : Crystalline Silicon

-

Power installed: 125 ,3 KW

-

Estimated losses: 12%

-

Scope of the panels: 40º

-

Orientation: South

We have obtained the next result:

Page 39 of 70


Cells
288

Area
Area/cell (m²)
2,06

(m²)
593,05

Total Pm
Pm/cell (W)
435

Total Pm

(W)

(KW)
125280

125,28

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php

Page 40 of 70


Total Pm (KW)

Month

Electricity production (kWh)

125,28 Jan

3390,00

Feb

5390,00

Mar

13000,00

Apr

17600,00

May

18700,00

Jun

18000,00

Jul

17600,00

Aug

16100,00

Sep

13200,00

Oct

8750,00

Nov

4270,00

Dec

2680,00

TOTAL

138680,00

PV cells production (free energy) = 139 MWh/year

Page 41 of 70


2.5.4. Results
The solar cell plant implementation involves the next results:
Building 1

Building 2

Taking into account the data exposed below we know that the construction of the solar
cells plant causes a decrease from 180,40 Kwh/m2 to 140,40 Kwh/m2 in the building 1
and from 171,50 to 114,10 Kwh/m2 in the building 2.

Page 42 of 70


3.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:

The main target of a company is to earn money, that’s because energy savings and the
environmental preservation are not enough reasons to develop an energy
refurbishment. The company should have money saving which let them get back the
initial investment and provide then benefit which make them grow up.
The systems will be analyzed separately to show if they are sustainable or not.

Page 43 of 70


3.1. INSULATION.
3.1.1. Insulation budget
Project: R82 Refurbishment
BUDGET
Ud
R82 Refurbishment
3 Subject

Q Price

Insulation

3,1

3.058.668,52

Wall Insulation (100 mm)
m²

144.617,99

Wall insulation between gypsum board frames (included in the
price). Mineral wool compacted panels ECO40D "ISOVER",
100m m width.
Units Length Width Height

569,800 253,80

Partial
408,80

408,80

Office wall B 3-4

161,00

144.617,99

Subtotal

Office wall B 1-2

3,2

Amount
3.058.668,52

161,00

Wall Insulation (150 mm)
m²

1.203.920,16

Wall insulation between gypsum board frames (included in the 3.757,240 320,43
price). Mineral wool compacted panels ECO40D "ISOVER",
150m m width.

1.203.920,16


3,2

Subtotal

1778,34

1778,34

1978,90

Factory wall
B 1-2
Factory wall
B 3-4

Partial

1978,90

Roof Insulation
m²

1.710.130,37

Roofmate LG-X from Styrofoam for insulating lightweight. It is 6.112,690 279,77
composed of prefabricated insulation boards with a surface
10m m of modified m ortar topping.

1.710.130,37

Partial

Subtotal

Building 1-2


3775,75

3775,75

Building 3-4

2336,94

2336,94

The new insulation involves an initial investment of 3.058.668,41 DKK and it provides
an energy saving of 106,09 MWh per year. This means a monetary saving of near
74.645,96 DKK the first year (which will increase the 4% each year because of the gas
price raise).
During the life span of the system (40 years) you could save 7.093.271,04 DKK
Taking into account the data exposed below, the initial investment would be gotten
back in less than 25 years.

Page 44 of 70


IRR: The Internal rate of return (the future cash flow against first cost) is 3,68 %, lower
than the hurdle rate (minimum acceptable Internal Rate of Return).
NPV: The net Present Value (The total net cash flow generated over the lifetime with
discounted cash flows that occur in the future) is NEGATIVE.
Therefore, the investment is NOT ECONOMICALLY PROFITABLE to the company.

WE HAVE REJECTED THIS SOLUTION

Page 45 of 70


3.1.1. Financial analysis

NEW INSULATION
Year
Initial cost
0 kr.
-3.058.668,52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Life span
Hurdle rate
Annual GAS increasing

Savings generated
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.

74.645,96
77.631,80
80.737,07
83.966,56
87.325,22
90.818,23
94.450,96
98.228,99
102.158,15
106.244,48
110.494,26
114.914,03
119.510,59
124.291,01
129.262,65
134.433,16
139.810,49
145.402,91
151.219,02
157.267,78
163.558,50
170.100,83
176.904,87
183.981,06
191.340,31
198.993,92
206.953,67
215.231,82
223.841,09
232.794,74
242.106,53
251.790,79
261.862,42
272.336,92
283.230,39
294.559,61
306.341,99
318.595,67
331.339,50
344.593,08

40 years
0,16
4,00%

Accumulative
Savings
Simple Payback
NPV
IRR

kr.

7.093.271,04

kr.

24,75 years
-2.107.331,48
3,68%

Page 46 of 70


3.2. WINDOWS.
3.2.1. Windows budget

BUDGET
Ud
R82 Refurbishment
4 Subject

Q

Price

Importe
906.818,85

Windows
Windows type 1

4,1
Ud

906.818,85
689.346,46

Aluminium window with 3-layer energy glazing. Uw = 84,000 8.206,51
0,8 W/m ²/K and Uw, inst = 0,85 W/m²/K.
Size: 2,40
x 1,60 m. Including delivery and installation.Alto Parcial Subtotal
Uds. Largo Ancho

689.346,46

Building 1-2

4,2

43

43,00

43,00

Building 3-4

41

41,00

41,00

Windows type 2
Ud

180.543,12

Size: 1,20
Uds. Largo Ancho

180.543,12

Building 1-2

4,3

3

3,00

3,00

Building 3-4

41

41,00

41,00

Windows type 3
Ud

36.929,27

Size: 1,20
Uds. Largo Ancho

36.929,27

Building 1-2

0

0,00

0,00

Building 3-4

12

12,00

12,00

The new windows involves an initial investment of 906.818,85 DKK and it provides an
energy saving of 62,61 MWh per year. This means a monetary saving of near
44.053,01 DKK the first year (which will increase the 4% each year because of the gas
price raise).
back in more or less 15 years.

Page 47 of 70




Page 48 of 70



WINDOWS
Year
Initial cost
Savings generated
0 kr. -906.818,85
1
kr.
44.053,01
2
kr.
45.815,13
3
kr.
47.647,73
4
kr.
49.553,64
5
kr.
51.535,79
6
kr.
53.597,22
7
kr.
55.741,11
8
kr.
57.970,75
9
kr.
60.289,58
10
kr.
62.701,17
11
kr.
65.209,21
12
kr.
67.817,58
13
kr.
70.530,29
14
kr.
73.351,50
15
kr.
76.285,56
16
kr.
79.336,98
17
kr.
82.510,46
18
kr.
85.810,88
19
kr.
89.243,31
20
kr.
92.813,04
21
kr.
96.525,57
22
kr.
100.386,59
23
kr.
104.402,05
24
kr.
108.578,14
25
kr.
112.921,26
26
kr.
117.438,11
27
kr.
122.135,64
28
kr.
127.021,06
29
kr.
132.101,90
30
kr.
137.385,98
31
kr.
142.881,42
32
kr.
148.596,68
33
kr.
154.540,54
34
kr.
160.722,16
35
kr.
167.151,05
36
kr.
173.837,09
37
kr.
180.790,58
38
kr.
188.022,20
39
kr.
195.543,09
40
kr.
203.364,81

Life span

25 years

Hurdle rate
Annual GAS
increasing

0,16
4,00%

Accumulative
Savings
Simple Payback
NPV
IRR

kr.

4.186.159,87

kr.

15,3 years
-469.279,53
7,62%

Page 49 of 70


3.3. DOORS.
3.3.1. Doors budget

BUDGET
Ud
R82 Refurbishment
5 Subject
5,1

Q

Price

Doors
Track doors type 1
Ud

Importe
186.884,51
186.884,51
73.112,50

Track doors 4,00 x 4,00 m. Door sandwich panels of
40mm width and 610mm height. The panel is made of
prepainted galvanized steel sheet and inside it has
polyurethane foam (40kg/mᶟ). U-Value 0,80 W/m²K.

4,000 18.278,13

73.112,50

Units Length Width Height Partial Subtotal
Building 1

5,2

2

2,00

2,00

Building 2

2

2,00

2,00

Track doors type 2
Ud

113.772,01

Track doors 4,00x6,00m. Door sandwich panels of
40mm width and 610mm height. The panel is made of
prepainted galvanized steel sheet and inside it has
polyurethane foam (40kg/mᶟ). U-Value 0,80 W/m²K.

5,000 22.754,40

113.772,01

Units Length Width Height Partial Subtotal
Building 1

2

2,00

2,00

Building 2

3

3,00

3,00

The new doors involves an initial investment of 186.884,51 DKK and it provides an
energy saving of 11,41 MWh per year. This means a monetary saving of near 8.028,19
DKK the first year (which will increase the 4% each year because of the gas price
raise).

During the life span of the system (40 years) you could save 762.882,67 DKK

Page 50 of 70




Page 51 of 70



WINDOWS
Year
Initial cost
Savings generated
0 kr.
-186.884,51
1
kr.
8.028,19
2
kr.
8.349,32
3
kr.
8.683,29
4
kr.
9.030,62
5
kr.
9.391,84
6
kr.
9.767,52
7
kr.
10.158,22
8
kr.
10.564,55
9
kr.
10.987,13
10
kr.
11.426,61
11
kr.
11.883,68
12
kr.
12.359,03
13
kr.
12.853,39
14
kr.
13.367,52
15
kr.
13.902,22
16
kr.
14.458,31
17
kr.
15.036,64
18
kr.
15.638,11
19
kr.
16.263,64
20
kr.
16.914,18
21
kr.
17.590,75
22
kr.
18.294,38
23
kr.
19.026,15
24
kr.
19.787,20
25
kr.
20.578,69
26
kr.
21.401,83
27
kr.
22.257,91
28
kr.
23.148,22
29
kr.
24.074,15
30
kr.
25.037,12
31
kr.
26.038,60
32
kr.
27.080,15
33
kr.
28.163,35
34
kr.
29.289,89
35
kr.
30.461,48
36
kr.
31.679,94
37
kr.
32.947,14
38
kr.
34.265,03
39
kr.
35.635,63
40
kr.
37.061,05

Life span

40 years

Hurdle rate

0,16

Annual GAS increasing

4,00%

Accumulative
Savings
Simple Payback
NPV
IRR

kr.

762.882,67

kr.

16,78 years
-104.164,70
6,83%

Page 52 of 70


3.4. HEATING SYSTEM SOLUTION.
3.4.1. Heating system budget
BUDGET
Ud
R82 Refurbishment
1 Subject

Q

Price

Amount
kr. 1.135.497,54

Heating System
Ud

kr.

1.135.497,54

Heat Pumps

1,1

kr.

1.074.306,18

5,000 kr. 214.861,24
Danfoss DHP-S heat pump 42 kW. Highcapacity heat pumps designed for use in the
large home and comm ercial sector.W H Partial Subtotal
COP=3,92.
Ud
L

kr.

1.074.306,18

Building 1

3

3,000

Building 2

2

2,000

Heat recovery system

1,2
Ud

kr.

Building 1

1

52.238,81

8.952,55

44,76 kr.

8.952,55

1,000

Heat system pipes
Ud

52.238,81

26.119,40

1,000

Building 2

1,3

1

kr.

kr.

kr.

Heat recovery system Exhausto X315. DX coils
2,000
it's used as an evaporator to extract energy from
Ud
L
W H Partial Subtotal

Heat recovery system made by polypropylene 200,000
rigid pipes, of 26/28mm diameter. Including
Ud

L

Building 1

1 120,00

Building 2

1

80,00

kr.

W H Partial Subtotal

120,000
80,000

The new heating system involves an initial investment of 1.135.497,54 DKK .

The first year you could save 277.621,94 DKK reducing the gas consumption in 491,4
MWh/a and you will increase the electricity consumption in 149,8 MWh/a which
involves 105.372,60 DKK.
Therefore, the first year you could save 341,6 MWh which involves 172.249,34 DKK

back less than 6 years.

IRR: The Internal rate of return (the future cash flow against first cost) is 18,17 %,
higher than the hurdle rate (minimum acceptable Internal Rate of Return).
Page 53 of 70


discounted cash flows that occur in the future) is POSITIVE (67.219,36 DKK)..
Therefore, the investment is ECONOMICALLY PROFITABLE to the company.

WE HAVE ADOPTED THIS SOLUTION

Page 54 of 70



HEAT PUMP SYSTEM
Year
Initial cost
Savings generated
0 kr. -1.135.900,41
1
kr.
172.249,34
2
kr.
175.866,58
3
kr.
180.263,24
4
kr.
184.769,82
5
kr.
189.389,07
6
kr.
194.123,79
7
kr.
198.976,89
8
kr.
203.951,31
9
kr.
209.050,09
10
kr.
214.276,35
11
kr.
219.633,26
12
kr.
225.124,09
13
kr.
230.752,19
14
kr.
236.520,99
15
kr.
242.434,02
16
kr.
248.494,87
17
kr.
254.707,24
18
kr.
261.074,92
19
kr.
267.601,79
20
kr.
274.291,84
21
kr.
281.149,14
22
kr.
288.177,86
23
kr.
295.382,31
24
kr.
302.766,87
25
kr.
310.336,04

Total savings
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.

172.249,34
175.866,58
180.263,24
184.769,82
189.389,07
194.123,79
198.976,89
203.951,31
209.050,09
214.276,35
219.633,26
225.124,09
230.752,19
236.520,99
242.434,02
248.494,87
254.707,24
261.074,92
267.601,79
274.291,84
281.149,14
288.177,86
295.382,31
302.766,87
310.336,04

Life span

25 years

Accumulative Savings

Hurdle rate

0,16

Simple Payback

Annual electricity
increasing

6,00%

Annual gas price
increasing

4,00%

NPV
IRR

kr.

5.861.363,92
5,83 years

kr.

67.219,36
18,17%

Page 55 of 70


3.5. PV CELLS SOLUTION.
3.5.1. PV cells budget
BUDGET
Ud
R82 Refurbishment
2 Subject

Q

Price

PV cells plant

2,1

Amount
848.728,21
848.728,21

Earth work
m³

1.398,75

Trenching for foundations in semi-hard clay soil.
Uds.
Trenching for unit
fundations

2,2

L

H

T

6,300
Partial

1.398,75

Subtotal

63 0,50 0,50 0,40 6,300

222,02

6,300

Fundations

2,2,1

4.794,09

Superficiales
m³

4.794,09

Isolated foundation, reinforced concrete 25 N/mm ².
Uds.

L

H

T

6,300
Partial

760,97

4.794,09

Subtotal

0
Unit fundations

63 0,50 0,50 0,40 6,300

6,300

Structures
Steel

2,3
2,3,1

197.951,66
197.951,66

kg

Steel beams. Including delivery, installation and welding 8.707,500
of joints.

12,38

107.836,84

kg

Steel pillars. Including delivery, installation and welding of 7.276,500
joints.

12,38

90.114,82

2,4

PV cells system
Ud

SunPowerTM E20 Solar Panels provide today’s highest
efficiency and performance. Powered by SunPower
MaxeonTM cell technology, the E20 series provides panel
conversion efficiencies of up to 20.1%. The

644.583,71
288,000 2.238,14

644.583,71

The photovoltaic system implation involves an initial investment of 848.728,21 DKK
and it provides an energy saving of 139 MWh per year. This means a monetary saving
of near 97.605,72 DKK the first year (which will increase the 6% each year because of
the gas price raise) and the possibility of getting a subsidy which reduces the electricity
price for the 20 years after the system installation. This means a saving of about
12.000 DKK the first 10 years and about 37.000 DKK the 10 years after.

Page 56 of 70


discounted cash flows that occur in the future) is POSITIVE (21.414,85 DKK).

WE HAVE ADOPTED THIS SOLUTION

Page 57 of 70



PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS
Year
Initial cost
Savings generated
0 kr. -848.728,21
1
kr.
97.605,72
2
kr.
103.462,07
3
kr.
109.669,79
4
kr.
116.249,98
5
kr.
123.224,98
6
kr.
130.618,48
7
kr.
138.455,58
8
kr.
146.762,92
9
kr.
155.568,69
10
kr.
164.902,82
11
kr.
174.796,99
12
kr.
185.284,80
13
kr.
196.401,89
14
kr.
208.186,01
15
kr.
220.677,17
16
kr.
233.917,80
17
kr.
247.952,86
18
kr.
262.830,04
19
kr.
278.599,84
20
kr.
295.315,83
21
kr.
313.034,78
22
kr.
331.816,87
23
kr.
351.725,88
24
kr.
372.829,43
25
kr.
395.199,20

Subsidy
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.

12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
12.325,84
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
36.977,53
-

Total savings
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.

109.931,57
115.787,91
121.995,64
128.575,82
135.550,82
142.944,32
150.781,43
159.088,76
167.894,54
177.228,66
211.774,52
222.262,34
233.379,42
245.163,54
257.654,70
270.895,33
284.930,40
299.807,57
315.577,37
332.293,36
313.034,78
331.816,87
351.725,88
372.829,43
395.199,20

Life span

25 years

Accumulative Savings

kr. 5.848.124,16

Hurdle rate

0,16

Simple Payback

7,73 years

Annual electricity
increasing

6,00%

NPV
IRR

kr.

21.414,85
17,67%

Page 58 of 70


4.

PROBLEM SOLVING:

Page 59 of 70


4.1. FINAL SOLUTION
We have just adopted the last two solutions because we can only get an economic
profit for the company with these two systems:
-

Heating system solution

-

PV cells solution.

The new heating system and the solar cell plant implementation involve the next
results:
Building 1

Building 2

Taking into account the data exposed below we know that the solution adopted causes
a decrease from 180,40 Kwh/m2 to 109,6 Kwh/m2 in the building 1 and from 171,50 to
83,3 Kwh/m2 in the building 2.

New heating system production = 491 MWh/year
Heat Exchanger production (free energy) = 342 MWh/year
PV cells production (free energy) = 139 MWh/year

TOTAL ENERGY SAVINGS = 481 MWh/year

Page 60 of 70


4.2. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.
4.2.1. Final solution budget
Project:R82 Refurbishment
BUDGET
Ud
R82 Refurbishment

1 Subject

Q

Price

Heating System

1,1

kr. 1.135.900,41

Heat Pumps
Ud

kr. 1.074.306,18

Danfoss DHP-S heat pump 42 kW. High-capacity heat
5,000
pumps designed for use in the large home and Partial Subtotal
Ud L
W
H
Building 1-2

3
2

kr. 214.861,24

kr. 1.074.306,18

3,000

Building 3-4

1,2

Amount
1.984.628,62

2,000

Heat recovery system
Ud

kr.

52.238,81

Heat recovery system Exhausto X315. DX coils it's used
2,000 kr. 26.119,40
as an evaporator to extract energyL
from W air. Air Partial Subtotal
the H flow
Ud

kr.

52.238,81

kr.

9.355,42

44,76 kr.

9.355,42

Building 1

1,3

1

1,000

Building 2

1

1,000

Heat system pipes
Ud

Heat recovery system made by polypropylene rigid 209,000
pipes, of 26/28mm diameter. Including delivery Partial Subtotal
Ud L
W
H and
Building 1

1,00

120,000

Building 2

1,00

kr.

89,000

Page 61 of 70

2 Subject

PV cells plant

2,1

848.728,21

Earth work
m³

1.398,75

Trenching for foundations in semi-hard clay soil.
Ud

L

W

H

6,300
Partial

Trenching for unit 63 0,50 0,50 0,40 6,300
fundations

2,2

1.398,75

Subtotal
6,300

Fundations

2,2,1

222,02

Shallow fundations
m³

4.794,09
4.794,09

Isolated foundation, reinforced concrete 25 N/mm ².
Ud

L

W

H

6,300

Partial

760,97

4.794,09

Subtotal

0
Unit fundations

2,3

6,300

Structures

2,3,1

63 0,50 0,50 0,40 6,300

Steel
kg
kg

2,4

197.951,66
197.951,66

Steel beams. Including delivery, installation and 8.707,500
welding of joints.
Steel pillars. Including delivery, installation and welding 7.276,500
of joints.

12,38

107.836,84

12,38

90.114,82

PV cells system
Ud

SunPowerTM E20 Solar Panels provide today’s highest
efficiency and performance. Powered by SunPower
MaxeonTM cell technology, the E20 series provides
panel conversion efficiencies of up to 20.1%. The
E20’s low voltage temperature coefficient, anti-reflective
glass and exceptional low-light performance attributes
provide outstanding energy delivery per peak power
watt.

644.583,71
288,000

2.238,14

644.583,71

The final solution includes heating system solution and photovoltaic system
implementation. This involves an initial investment of 1.984.628,62 DKK and it provides
an energy saving of 481 MWh per year. This means a monetary saving of near
282.180,91 DKK the first year.

During the life span of the systems (25 years) you could save 11.709.488,07 DKK

discounted cash flows that occur in the future) is POSITIVE (2.187.530,98 DKK).

Page 62 of 70



FINAL SOLUTION
Year
Initial cost
0 kr. -1.984.628,62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Total savings
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.
kr.

282.180,91
291.654,49
302.258,88
313.345,64
324.939,89
337.068,11
349.758,32
363.040,08
376.944,63
391.505,01
431.407,77
447.386,42
464.131,61
481.684,53
500.088,72
519.390,20
539.637,64
560.882,49
583.179,17
606.585,20
594.183,91
619.994,73
647.108,19
675.596,30
705.535,24

Life span

25 years

Hurdle rate
Annual electricity
increasing
Annual gas price
increasing

0,16
6,00%

Accumulative
Savings
Simple Payback
NPV
IRR

kr.

11.709.488,07

6,25 years
2.187.530,98 DKK
17,47%

4,00%

Page 63 of 70


5.

CONCLUSION: DID YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND WHAT WAS THE
SOLUTION?

Page 64 of 70


5.1. ECONOMIC CRITERIA.
Due to a company is mainly created to generate benefits, this point must be
considerate the most important. The implantation of the systems described above
saves to the company a considerable amount of money, nearly 300.000 kr. per year
among energy savings and subsidies which would be received that would rise each
year because of the energy price increasing.
The initial investment is important, but in the case of the photovoltaic solar panels they
would be payback in 7 years and a half and in the case of the heat pump system in
almost 6 years. Taking into account that the hurdle rate impost by the company is the
16%, both of the systems are investments that they should consider.

5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA.
Beside the economic criteria, environmental preservation must be considered too.
Fossil fuel consumption is delivering high amounts of gases which contribute to
develop

the

greenhouse

effect

therefore

it

substitution

by

renewable

energies may be a solution to the problem.
The proposed changes in the factory provide an energy saving of about 241.000 Kwh
per year in heating and 140.000 Kwh in electricity that means about 70 tons of CO2
that won’t be delivered to the atmosphere.

Page 65 of 70


5.3. PUBLIC IMAGE OF THE COMPANY.
As a final point, must be said that the implementation of renewable energies and the
support of environmental preservation could collaborate to the improvement of the
company’s image.

kr. 800.000,00

350 tons

kr. 700.000,00

300 tons

kr. 600.000,00

250 tons

kr. 500.000,00
200 tons
kr. 400.000,00
150 tons
kr. 300.000,00
100 tons

kr. 200.000,00

50 tons

kr. 100.000,00
kr. -

tons

2010

2011
CO2 emissions

2012
Electricity

Future
Gas

Taking into account the points exposed below the conclusion extracted is that the
company should at least analyze deeply the propositions, and probably they should
perform the changes.

Page 66 of 70


6.

LITERATURE:

AGE BREDAHI ERIKSEN: Renewable Energy. Vitus Bering CVU, 2003
Sustainable Energy- without the hot air. Version 3.5.2. November 3, 2008.
JORN STENE:
Air-Source vs. Water/Ground-Source.
Heat Pump Systems – Operational Characteristics

TER CS1 A13. Basic of thermodynamics.

COOLENERGY. Commercial label. www.coolenergy.dk

DANFOSS. Commercial label. www.danfoss.com

EXHAUSTO. Commercial label. www.exhausto.com

EUROPE’S ENERGY PORTAL. www.energy.eu

LEGAL SOURCES ON RENEWABLE ENERGY. www.res-legal.eu
JOINT

RESEARCH

CENTRE

Institute

for

Energy

and

Transport

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

Page 67 of 70


7.

GROUP WORK METHODOLOGY

After finishing the project and reread the project description, we have considered
necessary to add a paragraph that explains our working methodology in order to ease
the evaluation.
The main reason to choose this project was that it includes many topics that we
consider interesting to learn, for this reason we all have worked in all parts of the
project, in a greater or lesser extent.
We consider that our project methodology is a great way to work because it favors the
debate and it provides consistence to the project as it’s made as a unit and not as
different parts collated. In the other way, this method doesn’t allow us to divide the
project into different sections according to its author and this could be a problem for the
examiners to assess it.
Trying to facilitate their work, we have elaborated a table that divides the work in
function of the maximum intervener but, as I explained before, not the only one.
Month
Week
Project Description
Visit InnoCamp
Group Work
Project Work
Analysis Construction
Analysis Consumption

September
37
38
39

40

41

October
42
43

44

45

November
46
47

48

December
Total
49
50 Hours ECTS

9
10

9
21

11

0,30
0,70

20

1,00

5
5
5
30

30

25

15
20
40
125

0,50
0,67
1,33
4,17

15
15
10
20
20

15
15

15
15

15
15

15
15

15
15

40
40

30
20

30
20

30

10

20
30
20
20
5

20
25
30
10
5

20
40
40
35

140

145

80

80

125

120

135

90
90
10
190
205
90
40
110
30
115
40
40
110 1200

3,00

30
30

Heating
Heating loads

30

10
15
35
40

Water
Electricity

10

Design solutions
Heating loads Building 1
Heating loads Building 2
Water consumption
Electricity
Heating

Analysis of solutions
Financial estimation
Drawings
Redaction
Total

9

10

11

120

115

0

0,33
6,33
6,83
3,00
3,67
3,83
1,33
37

Group work
David Canosa Vaamonde
José Miguel Salgado Pérez
Martín Amado Pousa
Pedro Rico López

Page 68 of 70


8.

PLANS:

Page 69 of 70

Energy refurbishment of the R82 factory

Energy refurbishment of the R82 factory

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Energy refurbishment of the R82 factory

Similar to Energy refurbishment of the R82 factory (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Energy refurbishment of the R82 factory