Fort Henry - Energy Audit Report

1 | P a g e
Energy Audit
Of
Fort Henry
Battery Buildings
Prepared by
Brynn, Renne,
Mike and Jesse
Course: ESET 630
Instructor: Steve Lapp
Energy Systems Engineering Technician & Technologist Program
St. Lawrence College

2 | P a g e
1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................2
1.1 – TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................4
3.0 FACILITY HISTORY..................................................................................................................12
3.1 FACILITY RETROFIT HISTORY ...........................................................................................................12
3.2 FACILITY BENCHMARK COMPARISON..............................................................................................12
4.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................14
4.1 FACILITY PLAN VIEW.......................................................................................................................14
4.2 AUDIT METHOD..............................................................................................................................14
4.3 CONDITION OF BATTERY BUILDINGS ...............................................................................................15
4.4.1 HEATING SYSTEM – ZONES MAP – NORTHWEST BATTERY BUILDING.............................................16
4.4.2 HEATING SYSTEM – ZONES MAP – SOUTHEAST BATTERY BUILDING ..............................................17
4.5 HEATING SYSTEM – ZONES, SETPOINTS AND OCCUPANCY ...............................................................18
4.6 COOLING SYSTEM – ZONES MAP – SOUTHEAST BATTERY BUILDING.................................................19
4.6.1 COOLING SYSTEM – Annual Consumption – SouthEast Battery Building ........................................20
4.7 Technical Method of Filling in Missing Billing Data (Dec 2012 – June 2013).......................................21
4.8 Natural Gas Usage Data ..................................................................................................................22
4.9 HDD Correlation with Electricity Consumption ................................................................................23
4.10 Electrical Consumption Regression Analysis...................................................................................24
4.11 HDD Correlation with Natural Gas Consumption............................................................................25
4.12 Natural Gas Consumption Regression Analysis (Combined data from Battery + Fort) ......................27
4.13 Energy Usage – Modelled vs Actual ...............................................................................................28
5.0 RETROFITS.............................................................................................................................29
5.1 Energy Savings Opportunities .........................................................................................................31
5.2 Renewable Energy Retrofit Possibilities...........................................................................................37
5.3 Technical and Financial Data of Retrofits.........................................................................................45
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................47
Appendix A: Retscreen Zone Designations ...................................................................................48
Appendix B.1: Building Map Zone Designation (NorthWest Battery) ............................................49
Appendix B.2: Building Map Zone Designation (SouthEast Battery)..............................................50
Appendix C.1: Table of Wall and Ceiling types with R-Values (NorthWest Battery) .......................51
Appendix C.2: Table of Wall and Ceiling types with R-Values (SouthEast Building)........................53
Appendix D: Table of Windows and Doors (NorthWest Battery)...................................................54
Appendix D: Table of Windows and Doors (SouthEast Battery) ....................................................55
Appendix E: Lighting and Miscellaneous Electrical Loads (NorthWest Battery) .............................56
Appendix E: Lighting and Miscellaneous Electrical Loads (SouthEast) ...........................................57
Appendix F: Utility Reconciliation................................................................................................59
Appendix G: Gas Meter Data (Combined Buildings) .....................................................................60
Appendix H: Utilities Kingston Meter Data (Combined Buildings).................................................61
Appendix I: Electricity Heating Degree Day Data ..........................................................................62
Appendix J: Natural Gas ‘Heating Degree Day’ Data (Union Gas Bill Data) ....................................63

3 | P a g e
1.1 – TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Battery & Main Fort............................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 - Contribution of each building envelope category to heat loss (as dollars); both buildings...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3 – Map of Different Zones, as modelled in software........................................................................ 5
Figure 4 – Contribution of each Zone to electrical consumption (as dollars); both buildings....................... 5
Figure 5 – Contribution of each Zone to natural gas consumption (as dollars); both buildings................... 7
Figure 6 – Electricity Consumption Data (2006 – 2014) ............................................................................... 8
Figure 7 – Natural Gas Consumption Data (2006 – 2014)............................................................................ 8
Figure 8 – Electricity Consumption vs Heating Degree Days (2012 – 2014) ................................................. 9
Figure 9 – Natural Gas Consumption vs Heating Degree Days (2012 – 2014) ........................................... 10
Figure 10 – Regression Analysis of gas consumption vs HDD’s (2012-2014).............................................. 10
Figure 11 – Regression Analysis of Electricity consumption vs HDD’s (2012-2014).................................... 11
Figure 12 – Comparison of modelled and actual energy consumption data.............................................. 11
Figure 13 – Actual vs normalized energy use by building age.................................................................... 12
Figure 14 – Energy Star Portfolio Manager Energy benchmark table ........................................................ 13
Figure 15 - Aerial View of Battery & Main Fort.......................................................................................... 14
Figure 16 - Modeled Heat Loss Costs of Building Envelope Categories ..........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 17 – NorthWest Battery Building zone description (Heating).......................................................... 16
Figure 18 – SouthEast Battery Building zone description (Heating) ........................................................... 17
Figure 19 – Tables of Battery Building Heating Setpoints .......................................................................... 18
Figure 20 – Tables of Battery Building Heating Schedules..............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 21 – SouthEast Battery Building zone description (Cooling)............................................................ 19
Figure 22 – SouthEast Zone 2 Electrical Consumption................................................................................ 20
Figure 23 – SouthEast Zone 4 Electrical Consumption................................................................................ 20
Figure 24: 2012 to 2014 Fort Complex Electricity Consumption................................................................. 21
Figure 25- Electricity Consumption using Utilities Kingston Data only (2012-2014) .................................. 21
Figure 26-Natural Gas Cost and Consumption ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 27- Historical Gas billing rates applied to Bookkeeping data.......................................................... 22
Figure 28- Natural gas consumption data (Utilities Kingston + Bookkeeping data) .................................. 23
Figure 29- kWh/ Day & Heating Degree Days Correlation ....................................................................... 23
Figure 30 – Regression Analysis of Electrical Consumption Data (Utilities Kingston Data)........................ 24
Figure 31 – Regression Analysis of Electrical Consumption Data (Bookkeeping Data) .............................. 25
Figure 32: Natural Gas Consumption VS Heating Degree Days (2006 - 2013) ........................................... 26
Figure 33 - Natural Gas Consumption Regression Analysis Table .............................................................. 27
Figure 34 - Natural Gas Regression Analysis Graph.................................................................................... 27
Figure 35- Equivalent kWh & Natural Gas m3
for Fort................................................................................ 28
Figure 36- Northwest Heating System Parameters .................................................................................... 48
Figure 37- Southeast Heating System Parameters ..................................................................................... 48
Figure 38- NorthWest Battery Building Zones ............................................................................................ 49
Figure 39- SouthEast Battery Building Zones.............................................................................................. 50
Figure 40- Zones 1-4 Building Envelope...................................................................................................... 51
Figure 41- Zone 5 Building Envelope Northeast.......................................................................................... 52
Figure 42- Zone 1-4 Building Envelope........................................................................................................ 53
Figure 43- Zone 1-5 Windows and Doors Northwest.................................................................................. 54
Figure 44 - Zone 1-4 Windows and Doors Southeast.................................................................................. 55
Figure 45- Northwest Electrical Loads ........................................................................................................ 56
Figure 46 - Southeast Building Loads.......................................................................................................... 57
Figure 47 - Southeast Building Loads ext.................................................................................................... 58
Figure 48: Table of Natural Gas Cost and Consumption, 2012-2014. (UNION GAS bill data) .................... 60
Figure 49: Table of Electricity Cost and Consumption, 2012-2014. (Utilities Kingston Data).................... 61
Figure 50: Avg kWh/Day extrapolated from Heating Degree Day Data and Utilities Kingston/
Bookkeeping Data....................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 51: Natural Gas Heating Degree Day Data...................................................................................... 63

4 | P a g e
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the months of October and November 2014, students of the SLC energy systems program performed a
preliminary energy audit of buildings in the Fort Henry complex. The objective of the audit was to accurately model
the energy usage of the Fort Henry complex, determine areas for potential savings and give recommendations for
retrofits. Given the size of the Fort Henry complex, students were divided into groups to analyze three distinct areas
of the Fort Henry complex: the ‘Main Fort’, the ‘Battery’ and the ‘Stockade. This report was compiled by the four
students responsible for modeling the Battery Buildings.
The first task we accomplished was the recording of measurement and descriptive data for the battery buildings
over several site visits. From this data, we were able to model the buildings using industry standard energy
modelling software. Using the software model, we analyzed different aspects of the Battery Building, with specific
focus on cost and energy usage.
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Battery & Main Fort
To model the building in software, we first had to separate it into different “Zones”, based on the distribution of
heating systems. These zones were also chosen based on their function. Then, using our model, we derived the
expected annual electrical cost per zone, as well as the expected annual natural gas cost per zone.

5 | P a g e
Figure 3 – Map of Different Zones, as modelled in software
*(See sections 4.4; 4.5 for Detailed Zone Maps)
Figure 4 – Contribution of each Zone to electrical consumption (as dollars); both buildings
The graphic above describes the breakdown of electrical consumption within each of the battery buildings. The
graphic allows one to immediately see which areas of the building are the highest electrical consumers, and to
identify which areas might be good candidates for consumption reduction strategies. It can be seen that the
greatest user of energy is in the Kitchen and Dining Areas. Below is a graph showing a breakdown of electrical
consumption within that area (Zone 4).
$500
$10 $31
$95
$61
$437
$99
$343
$5898
Forward Battery Annual Electrical Consumption per Zone
Engineer Store 1 + 2 Artillery Store #3 Artillery Rm#3
Magazine A, B, + C Wine Rm 1 + 2 Bathrooms
Dining Area 1 + 2 Office Kitchen + Dining Areas

6 | P a g e
Major kitchen equipment such as the walk-in freezer, the range hood, the dishwasher and several fridges consume
the majority of electricity used by the battery building complex. Also, due to the limitations of the software model, it
was necessary to model the AC cooling units as their own separate zone within the SouthEast Building.
Lighting
$471
Refrigeration
$3572
Kitchen Equipment
$359
Hot Water
$700
A/C
$140
Fans
$560
Electrical Heating
$96
Forward Battery Kitchen & Dining Area Electrical Consumption

7 | P a g e
Figure 5 – Contribution of each Zone to natural gas consumption (as dollars); NW Battery
Figure 6 – Contribution of each Zone to natural gas consumption (as dollars); SE Battery
The charts above describe the breakdown of natural gas consumption within each of the battery buildings. This
information is useful for building managers as it shows them which areas of each building have the greatest
heating demand. Such information is vital for the formulating of an effective retrofit strategy.
RETscreen
Model #2
Women’s Bathroom
Men’s Bathroom
Zone 1
Tunnel
Dinning Area #1
Dinning Area #2
Office
Zone 2
Zone 3
Kitchen
Kitchen Prep
Dinning Area #3
Dinning Area #4
Dinning Area #5
Zone 4
South
East
Engineer Store #1
Engineer Store #2
Tunnel
Tunnel
Zone 1
Artillery Store #3Zone 2
Artillery Rm #3Zone 3
Magazine A
Magazine B
Magazine C
Wine Rm #1
Wine Rm #2
Zone 4
Zone 5
RETscreen
Model #1
North
West
$2,377.00
$475.00
$470.00
$1,121.00
$784.00
NorthWest Forward Battery Annual
Natural Gas Consumption per Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
$2,837.39
$2,699.89
$1,129.11
$6,772.73
SouthEast Forward Battery Annual
Natural Gas Consumption
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4

8 | P a g e
Electricity and gas consumption data were not available for the battery building complex in isolation. There existed
no electric or gas meters for just the battery buildings; meter data had combined consumption of the Fort and the
Battery Buildings. Using both ‘Utilities Kingston’ and ‘Fort Henry Bookkeeping’ data, we were able to develop
graphs for historical electrical and natural gas consumption for the combined Fort-Battery buildings:
Red lines denote “Utilities Kingston” data; Blue lines denote Fort Henry “Bookkeeping Data”.
Figure 6 – Electricity Consumption Data (2006 – 2014)
Red lines denote Fort Henry “Bookkeeping Data”; blue lines denote “Union Gas” data.
Figure 7 – Natural Gas Consumption Data (2006 – 2014)
700.0
950.0
1200.0
1450.0
1700.0
1950.0
2200.0
2450.0
2700.0
3/24/06
7/27/06
11/29/06
4/03/07
8/06/07
12/09/07
4/12/08
8/15/08
12/18/08
4/22/09
8/25/09
12/28/09
5/02/10
9/04/10
1/07/11
5/12/11
9/14/11
1/17/12
5/21/12
9/23/12
1/26/13
5/31/13
10/03/13
2/05/14
6/10/14
ElectricityConsumption(AvgkWh/Day)
Date
Electricity Consumption (Avg kWh/day) from 2006 though 2014
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
3/24/06
7/27/06
11/29/06
4/03/07
8/06/07
12/09/07
4/12/08
8/15/08
12/18/08
4/22/09
8/25/09
12/28/09
5/02/10
9/04/10
1/07/11
5/12/11
9/14/11
1/17/12
5/21/12
9/23/12
1/26/13
5/31/13
10/03/13
2/05/14
NaturalGasConsumption(Avg
m3/Day)
Date
Natural Gas Consumption (Avg m3/Day) Apr 2006 - Mar 2014

9 | P a g e
Note the increase in gas consumption from 2009 to 2010. We believe this increase to be a product of our
method of deriving consumption data, and may not actually be indicative of increased consumption. We will
examine this further later in the report.
The Battery Buildings are heated primarily with Natural Gas, with some electric heating. By plotting both
Electrical consumption and Natural Gas consumption versus ‘Heating Degree Days’, we can see the
correlation between consumption and the seasons:
Figure 8 – Electricity Consumption vs Heating Degree Days (2012 – 2014)
You’ll note from the previous graph two features:
Firstly, during the heating season, there appears to be only slight correlation between Heating Degree Days (a
measure of heating demand) and electrical consumption. This would suggest some electric resistant heating
being used during the winter in at least some zones. Another source of winter electrical consumption could
be the pipe heat tracing, which uses electric resistance heat.
Secondly, during the summer, there are high peaks of electrical consumption. This may be due to higher
usage of the facilities, major events, higher kitchen usage, or other factors. Overall though, there seems to be
no strong correlation between electrical consumption and heating degree days.
When examining the correlation between heating degree days and natural gas consumption, there appears to
be a much clearer match. From the graph below, it can be seen that the natural gas usage pattern follows
very closely the heating season, as one might expect to see from a primarily gas heated facility:
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
3/16/12
4/16/12
5/16/12
6/16/12
7/16/12
8/16/12
9/16/12
10/16/12
11/16/12
12/16/12
1/16/13
2/16/13
3/16/13
4/16/13
5/16/13
6/16/13
7/16/13
8/16/13
9/16/13
10/16/13
11/16/13
12/16/13
1/16/14
2/16/14
3/16/14
4/16/14
5/16/14
6/16/14
7/16/14
8/16/14
9/16/14
HDD/Day(BillPeriodAvg)
kWh/Day(BillPeriodAvg)
Date
Electricity Consumption (Avg kWh/Day) vs Heating Degree Days (Avg HDD/day)
From Combined Utilites Kingston & Bookkeeping Data - (2012 - 2014)
kWh/Day (Bill Period Avg)
Avg HDD/Day (Bill Period Avg)
December 2012 - June 2013 kWh data from "Bookkeeping"; Else from Utilities

10 | P a g e
Figure 9 – Natural Gas Consumption vs Heating Degree Days (2012 – 2014)
We performed regression analyses to examine the relation between gas consumption and ‘Heating Degree Days’
more closely:
Figure 10 – Regression Analysis of gas consumption vs HDD’s (2012-2014)
The slope of the natural gas regression plot on the previous page further confirms the fact that gas usage is closely
linked to the seasonal temperatures and heating demand. The Y-intercept (<600m3
N.G.) denotes the baseline gas
load that exists year-round, most likely from the restaurant. It being so small indicates that the gas usage from
sources not directly related to heating is comparatively negligible.
This feature stands in stark contrast to the Electrical Consumption Regression plot, shown below. It can be seen
here that the slope of the line is nearly flat, indicating little to no change of electrical consumption due to seasonal
temperature change.
This is a useful fact to know, as we can conclude that the contribution of electric resistant heating during the winter
must be much smaller than the other year-round electrical loads. This helps us prioritize retrofit options.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
5/01/12
6/01/12
7/01/12
8/01/12
9/01/12
10/01/12
11/01/12
12/01/12
1/01/13
2/01/13
3/01/13
4/01/13
5/01/13
6/01/13
7/01/13
8/01/13
9/01/13
10/01/13
11/01/13
12/01/13
1/01/14
2/01/14
HeatingDegreeDay(Avg
HDD/day)
NaturalGasConsumption(Avg
m3/day)
Date
Natural Gas Consumption (Avg m3/day) vs. Heating Degree Days ;
UNION GAS DATA- April 2012 - Feb 2014
Natural Gas Consumption (Avg m3/day)
Heating Degree Days (Avg HDD/day)
y = 504.64x + 597.19
R² = 0.7485
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NaturalGasConsumption
(m3/period)
HDD/Day Average over Period
Natural Gas Consumption (m3/Period) vs HDD Regression Plot; From
Union Gas Billing Data; May 2012 to January 2014

11 | P a g e
Figure 11 – Regression Analysis of Electricity consumption vs HDD’s (2012-2014)
After combining data with teams auditing other sections of the fort, we were able to compare our software
model with the actual energy consumption of the combined fort-battery complex. Our results are displayed
below:
Building
Modelled
vs Actual
Elec kWh
Nat. Gas
(m3)
e kWh HDD e kWh / ft2
Main
Fort Modelled
406,534 29,020 711,244 4182 ?
Battery Modelled 60,100 56,074 648,877 4182 35
Totals Modelled 466,634 85,094 1,360,121 n/a n/a
Actuals 509,000 76,300 1,310,150 4223.8 ?
Figure 12 – Comparison of modelled and actual energy consumption data
“e-kWh” refers to equivalent kilo-watt hours. It is a measure of the combined energy of both electricity and
natural gas. Calculating the e-kWh per square foot of area is a useful metric for benchmarking and comparing
building performance. We measured the battery building to be approximately 10,325 square feet, resulting in
an e-kWH/ft2
of 35. As will be seen in a future section of this report, that energy consumption density
compares favorably to other historical buildings.
y = 2.4985x + 1681.2
R² = 0.0064
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
AverageElecConsumption(kWh/day)
(Duringbillingperiod)
Average Heating Degree Day (HDD/day) (During billing period)
Avg Electricity Consumption (kWh/day) vs Avg HDD (HDD/day);
Utilities Kingston Data - March 2012 to Oct 2014

12 | P a g e
3.0 FACILITY HISTORY
3.1 FACILITY RETROFIT HISTORY
The age of Fort Henry means that there have most likely been multiple retrofits to the building over the
years. No documentation was readily available to compare the impact of retrofits on overall energy
consumption of the building.
3.2 FACILITY BENCHMARK COMPARISON
A facility benchmark is expressed as a buildings energy use per square meter (or square foot) per year. It is
calculated by dividing the total energy consumed by the building in one year by the total gross floor area
of the building. Once a benchmark is established energy usage can be compared and analyzed against
benchmark of other buildings.
Since Fort Henry uses multiple fuel types to operate the building, the natural gas usage (m3) in the battery
was converted to equivalent units of energy (ekWh). The total equivalent annual energy usage in the
Battery is 363,459.6 ekWh. The total heated area for the NorthWest Battery is 4,889 ft2. The total heated
area for the SouthEast Battery is 5436 ft2. The total heated area of the Battery (NorthWest and SouthEast
combined) is 10,325 ft2.
363,459.6 ekWh ÷ 10,325 ft2 = 35.2 ekWh/ft2
Therefore the benchmark energy consumption for the Battery is 35.2 ekWh/ft2.
The Fort Henry complex is very old, and as such, there is little information available on the energy usage
of comparative buildings. Two online sources containing similar building construction as Fort Henry will be
used to establish a baseline energy usage comparison.
The data for the first comparison was obtained from The Real Property Association of Canada’s (REALpac)
2010 Energy Benchmarking Report. The report illustrates average annual energy consumption
(ekW/ft2/yr) in office buildings built from before 1960 to current. The data given for office buildings built
before 1960’s will be used to compare Fort Henry’s energy benchmark. The chart shows benchmark use of
26 to 36 ekWh/ft2/year, so the existing usage of 35 ekWh/ft2/yr is not extraordinarily higher that typical
office buildings built in the 1970’s.
Figure 13 – Actual vs normalized energy use by building age

13 | P a g e
The data for the second comparison was obtained from the Energy Star portfolio Database on Energy,
Production, and Intensity Indicators for Canadian Industry. The source EUI energy benchmark for prisons
will be used for the second comparison. Prisons are typically constructed with building materials offering
similar insulation values to the building construction of the Fort (concrete, cement slab floor, etc).
Therefore we will use the energy benchmark for prisons as a baseline reference.
Figure 14 – Energy Star Portfolio Manager Energy benchmark table
The table below compares the energy benchmarks of the two sources against the calculated energy
benchmark for the Battery in Fort Henry.
Fort Henry Battery
Benchmark (ekWh/ft2)
Benchmark Comparisons (ekWh/ft2)
REALpac Benchmark
(Office Building)
Energy Star Benchmark
(Prison)
35.2 29 44.9
The Energy Star benchmark comparison for prisons is fairly similar to the calculated energy benchmark for
the Battery.
To conclude the comparisons of energy benchmarks it can be said that the energy performance of the
Battery is similar in comparison to facilities of similar construction. This informs us that there is not an
extraordinary usage of energy at the Battery.

14 | P a g e
4.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
4.1 FACILITY PLAN VIEW
The two structures our group was responsible for modeling were the NorthWest and SouthEast Battery Buildings, as
indicated in the picture below. Energy audits for the Main Fort and Maintenance Buildings are available in separate
reports.
Figure 15 - Aerial View of Battery & Main Fort
4.2 AUDIT METHOD
The first task of our team was the recording of measurement and descriptive data of the Battery Buildings. Individual
team members were tasked with collecting data regarding:
 Building Envelope. This includes physical dimensions of all relevant walls, windows, doors, roofs and floors.
Additionally, this includes a qualitative description of the feature, for example: Wall construction material, type
of window (single page, wood frame), amount of air gap underneath doors, etc.
 Electrical Loads: This involved recording the location, wattage and estimated usage of every electrical load within
the Battery Building complex. Loads include lights, computer equipment, electric heaters, AC’s, etc.
 Heating System: This involved recording the location, nameplate (if available) and estimated thermostat
setpoints of the several natural gas furnaces.
With those measurements, we constructed a software model of the building. For accuracy of modelled heating loads, the
NorthWest Battery Building was modelled with five separate heating zones, and the SouthEast Battery Building with four
zones. We input the electrical loads into the models with our best estimate of operation schedule and setpoint
temperature. Using the software tools, the R (insulation) values of building envelop materials were calculated to input
into the model. Heating occupancy schedules and setpoints were based on estimated usage patterns.
Electricity and gas consumption data were not available for the battery building complex in isolation. There existed no
electric or gas meters for just the battery buildings. Therefore we could not confirm the accuracy of our models simply
through referring to the historical utility bills: We had to make significant assumptions about the energy usage of our and
other buildings to balance the modeled with the actual building energy consumption. Results of the model were then
combined with the other audit teams & the aggregate results compared to the total meter data.
The overriding objective of this first phase of the audit was to develop a software model that matched as nearly as
possible the actual historical utility data. The results of our effort are available to be seen in section 4.12: “Modeled vs.
Actual Energy Use”.

15 | P a g e
4.3 CONDITION OF BATTERY BUILDINGS
Walls:
Most walls of the Fort Henry complex, including those
of the Battery Buildings, are of limestone construction.
External wall faces looked in good condition, with little
opportunity for air leakage through the masonry. R
Value of the solid stone walls is in the range of 1.8 –
2.8 depending on wall thickness.
Windows: Battery Building windows are of simple
single-pane, wood frame design.
Doors:
Doors at the Battery were of wooden solid-core construction. Noticeable air gaps were
observed underneath some of the doors.
Floors:
There were several different floor types in the different
individual rooms that made up the Battery Building
complex. Floor types included: Wood panel, poured
concrete, stone tile, etc.
Roofs:
The roofs were uniformly of arched brick construction. They were
bare faced to the room interiors, with a sort of gravel-stone-
concrete-plaster mixture on their attic exteriors.
Heating Systems:
The heating equipment consists of 13 direct vent vertical natural gas furnaces. The furnaces
have efficiencies in the range of 75-80%.

16 | P a g e
4.4.1 HEATING SYSTEM – ZONES MAP – NORTHWEST BATTERY BUILDING
Figure 17 – NorthWest Battery Building zone description (Heating)
NG Furnace
Manufacturer: Hunter
Model: GW508
Efficiency: 70%
TunnelTunnel
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
RETscreen
Model #1
North West
Non-Heated Zone
Non-Heated Zone
NG Furnace
Manufacturer: Warm Morning
Model: LSC50RN
Efficiency: 75%
NG Furnace
Manufacturer: Cozy
Model: VC351A-D
Efficiency: 75%
NG Furnace
Model: LSC50RN
Efficiency: 75%
NG Furnace
Model: LSC50RN
Efficiency: 75%
NG Furnace
Model: LSC50RN
Efficiency: 75%
NG Furnace
Manufacturer: Empire
Model: FAW-40-1 SPP
Efficiency: 75%
Gift Shop
Storage
Wine Store
Tickets
Dining

17 | P a g e
4.4.2 HEATING SYSTEM – ZONES MAP – SOUTHEAST BATTERY BUILDING
Figure 18 – SouthEast Battery Building zone description (Heating)
RETscreen
Model #2
Zone 1
Tunnel
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
South East
Non-Heated Zone
NG Furnace
Model: FAW-40-1 SPP
Efficiency: 76%
NG Furnace
Model: FAW-40-1 SPP
Efficiency: 76%
NG Furnace
Model: RH35NAT
Efficiency: 70%
NG Fireplace
Manufacturer: Napolean
Model: GDI-30P
Efficiency: 85%
NG Furnace
Manufacturer: Hunter
Model: GW508
Efficiency: 70%
NG Furnace
Model: LSC50RN
Efficiency: 75%
NG Furnace
Model: FAW-40-1 SPP
Efficiency: 76%
NG Furnace
Model: LSC50RN
Efficiency: 75%
Baseboard
Symbol
Bathroom
Kitchen
Dining
Offices
ElectricBaseboardHeaters

18 | P a g e
4.5 HEATING SYSTEM – ZONES, SETPOINTS AND OCCUPANCY
In order to accommodate the number of heating zones in RetScreen, each building was divided into
up to five different heating zones. Figures 17 and 18 on the previous pages show the layout of the
defined zones. Table 19 below shows the estimated temperature set-points of each defined zone.
NorthWest Battery Building Heating System Parameters
Zone Setpoint Estimates
1 Set-point (0
C) 15
2 Set-point (0
C) 10
3 Set-point (0
C) 10
4 Set-point (0
C) 10
5 Set-point (0
C) 10
SouthEast Battery Building Heating System Parameters
Zone Setpoint Estimates
1 Set-point (0
C) 18
2 Set-point (0
C) 19
3 Set-point (0
C) 19
4 Set-point (0
C) 19
Figure 19 – Tables of Battery Building Heating Setpoints
See Appendix E for heating systems technical specifications within each zone.

19 | P a g e
4.6 COOLING SYSTEM – ZONES MAP – SOUTHEAST BATTERY BUILDING
RETscreen
Model #2
Zone 1
Tunnel
Zone 2
South East
Window AC Unit
Manufacturer:
UBERHAUS
Model: 87795010
Efficiency: 100%
Window AC Unit
Manufacturer:
UBERHAUS
Model: 87795010
Efficiency: 100%
Window AC Unit
Manufacturer:
UBERHAUS
Model: 87795010
Efficiency: 100%
Window AC Unit
Manufacturer:
UBERHAUS
Model: 87795010
Efficiency: 100%
Zone 4
Zone 3
Figure 21 – SouthEast Battery Building zone description (Cooling)
The NorthWest Battery building has no evident cooling equipment.
Kitchen
Offices
Dining
Bathrooms

20 | P a g e
4.6.1 COOLING SYSTEM – Annual Consumption – SouthEast Battery Building
Visual inspection appears to conclude that the Southeast battery building has a total of four window
AC units. There is one window unit in the Zone 2 dining area, and three window units in the Zone 4
dining area. The annual cost to operate the four window AC units is estimated around 190$. This is
effectively 42% of the total electrical consumption estimated in Zone 2. All four window AC units are
estimated to operate for approximately 3.5 hrs/day during mid-April to mid-August.
Figure 22 – SouthEast Zone 2 Electrical Consumption
The annual cost contribution due to window AC units in Zone 4 is triple the estimated operation cost
in Zone 2. In Zone 4 the electrical consumption contribution from the window AC units is
approximately 7% of the total estimated consumption. The cost contribution as a percentage is
much lower in Zone 4 than opposed to Zone 2 due to the increased total operating costs reflected by
the amount of equipment within Zone 4.
Figure 23 – SouthEast Zone 4 Electrical Consumption
Lighting
$38
Miscellaneous $25
A/C
$47
SE Battery Building
Zone 2 Annual Electrical Consumption ($)
Lighting
$471
Refrigeration
$3572
Kitchen Equipment
$359
Hot Water
$700
A/C
$140
Fans
$560
Electrical Heating
$96
Forward Battery Kitchen & Dining Area Electrical Consumption

21 | P a g e
4.7 Technical Method of Filling in Missing Billing Data (Dec 2012 – June 2013)
To correctly model the electrical consumption usage of the battery building, we analyzed data from three different
sources: Utilities Kingston Billing data, Union Gas Billing data and internal Fort Henry bookkeeping data. We needed
to incorporate Fort Henry internal bookkeeping data because the record from Utilities Kingston was incomplete:
Figure 24: 2012 to 2014 Fort Complex Electricity Consumption
To compute the missing kWh consumption, we took the bookkeeping data for those missing months,
assumed a constant $/kWh rate (interpolated average from U.K. data) and divided the cost by the rate. The
result was kWh consumption data to fill in the blanks, this procedure provided a complete table of electrical
consumption from Jan 16 2012 through March 12 2014. Note the column in the figure above labelled “kWh
consumption ESTIMATED”; the billing dates are not all of identical day’s duration. This ‘non-uniformity’ of
billing periods necessitated the need to prioritize ‘average kWh/day’ over ‘monthly’ billing data. Figure 25
below shows the average kWh/day from Mar 2012 to Feb 2014:
Figure 25- Electricity Consumption using Utilities Kingston Data only (2012-2014)
Although the graph does show an increased electrical consumption during heating seasons, the
electrical consumption is not highly correlated with the heating seasons.
700.0
900.0
1100.0
1300.0
1500.0
1700.0
1900.0
2100.0
2300.0
2500.0
3/16/12
4/16/12
5/16/12
6/16/12
7/16/12
8/16/12
9/16/12
10/16/12
11/16/12
12/16/12
1/16/13
2/16/13
3/16/13
4/16/13
5/16/13
6/16/13
7/16/13
8/16/13
9/16/13
10/16/13
11/16/13
12/16/13
1/16/14
2/16/14
ElectricityConsumption(Avg
kWh/Day)
Date
Electricity Consumption (Avg kWh/Day) from Mar 2012 to Feb 2014;
Utilities Kingston Data Billing Only
Heating Season Heating Season
Incomplete Utilities
Kingston Data

22 | P a g e
4.8 Natural Gas Usage Data
Natural Gas consumption data was obtained through examination of the Union Gas billing data. The graph in
Figure 7 below represents the consumption for the Fort and Battery combined for the time period of May
2012 – February 2014:
Figure 26-Natural Gas Cost and Consumption
The heating season starts in November and runs through the end of March. The graph above shows that there
appears to be a baseline natural gas consumption throughout the year of an average of 50m3
per day. This
consumption is outside of the defined heating season, and is therefore the usage of the restaurant, as there is
no other gas equipment loads in the non-heating months.
Additional insight into natural gas consumption was obtained through analyzing the Fort Henry bookkeeping
data for natural gas. The following Table contains monthly bookkeeping billing data and historical natural gas
prices as recorded from the OEB website. Every three months the OEB adjusts natural gas billing rates. These
rates were applied to the corresponding bookkeeping billing data to obtain consumption data:
Figure 27- Historical Gas billing rates applied to Bookkeeping data
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
5/01/12
6/01/12
7/01/12
8/01/12
9/01/12
10/01/12
11/01/12
12/01/12
1/01/13
2/01/13
3/01/13
4/01/13
5/01/13
6/01/13
7/01/13
8/01/13
9/01/13
10/01/13
11/01/13
12/01/13
1/01/14
2/01/14
NaturalGasConsumption(Avgm3/day)
Date
Natural Gas Consumption for Gas Meter #102-5579-111-4383
May 2012 - Feb 2014
Heating Heating

23 | P a g e
Red lines denote Fort Henry “Bookkeeping Data”; blue lines denote “Union Gas” data.
Figure 28- Natural gas consumption data (Utilities Kingston + Bookkeeping data)
At first glance the above graph gives the illusion that natural gas consumption doubled from 2008 to 2009.
This might not actually be the case. We derived the consumption data on this graph by diving the known
“dollars spent” by the historical market gas price. The reason for this is that we did not have the exact
consumption data available, and had to make an extrapolation. The depressed consumption during the years
2006-2008 make in fact be due to higher gas price, and our method of deriving the data, rather than a
realistic and accurate representation of gas usage at the fort.
The Union Gas data, shown in blue, is the most accurate data we have, and can thus be assumed to be the
most reasonable estimate of consumption.
4.9 HDD Correlation with Electricity Consumption
Given the unknown effect that electric baseboard heating may have on the distribution of utilities costs, it
may be worthwhile to plot Heating Degree Day data versus electrical data, to observe what if any correlation
there may be. The data used to plot these graphs were the combined consumption and costs of all three
building complexes combined (Battery, Main Fort, Discovery)
Figure 29 - kWh/ Day & Heating Degree Days Correlation
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
3/24/06
7/27/06
11/29/06
4/03/07
8/06/07
12/09/07
4/12/08
8/15/08
12/18/08
4/22/09
8/25/09
12/28/09
5/02/10
9/04/10
1/07/11
5/12/11
9/14/11
1/17/12
5/21/12
9/23/12
1/26/13
5/31/13
10/03/13
2/05/14
NaturalGasConsumption(Avgm3/Day)
Date
Natural Gas Consumption (Avg m3/Day) Apr 2006 - Mar 2014

24 | P a g e
An interesting conclusion can be drawn from the first graph: During the winters, there indeed does
appear to be some correlation between HDD and electricity consumption. However we can also see
that during the summer, electricity usage rises considerably to peak somewhere near August. This
suggests high activity at the Fort driving a summer peak, with many events and electricity
consumption. The events appears to die down by October or November. At this point, the rising
HDD’s seems to lift the electric cost with it, and carries it through to March, implying a correlation
between electricity and heating.
It would be interesting to learn from the building managers at the Fort what is actually going on in
winter. If activities are very limited, then it suggests rooms are being heated with electric baseboard
heat when they do not need to be. This is an interesting avenue to pursue with data-logging next
semester, to record for ourselves the operation of the baseboard electric heaters.
In section 4.11, we included graphs like what was on the previous page. It will be seen that strong
correlations exist between natural gas use and HDD’s, just as with electricity and HDD’s. The
regression Analysis indicates as such.
The first of those graphs will plot the average “m3/day” consumption of natural gas (for each billing
period) against “HDD/day” Heating Degrees Days per identical billing period. Correlation between
these terms is highly expected, given the fact that natural gas is the primary source of heating fuel is
this system. If we do not find strong correlation, than we would have to return to our model and
make modifications.
4.10 Electrical Consumption Regression Analysis
Figure 30 – Regression Analysis of Electrical Consumption Data (Utilities Kingston Data)

25 | P a g e
Figure 31 – Regression Analysis of Electrical Consumption Data (Bookkeeping Data)
Figures 30 and 31 reveal some important facts about electricity consumption in the battery complex.
Figure 30, using Utilities Kingston electrical data, suggests no correlation whatsoever between the
heating season and electrical consumption. The flat slope indicates an average baseline electrical
consumption of approximately 1700 kWh’s per day, year-round.
Figure 31 on the other hand, would seem to suggest something a little different. This graph was
plotted using Fort Bookkeeping data, and shows a slight upward slope in the regression plot. One
explanation may be in how we derived the data. Just as with the gas bookkeeping data, we
extrapolated electrical consumption by using the dollar figure paid per month and the historical
electrical market price. This yielded consumption data that may not be entirely accurate, as it is
skewed by the vicissitudes of the price of electricity.
4.11 HDD Correlation with Natural Gas Consumption
Figure 32 on the next page shows the correlation between Heating Degree Days and natural gas
consumption. Both plot lines trace each other very closely, indicating a strong correlation between
heating demand and gas usage. This results is as expected for a facility with primary heating by
natural gas.
The slight mismatch during 2006-2009 may be, as has been discussed, due to the method of deriving
consumption data. Consumption during those years may appear lower than it actually was due to
the higher natural gas price, skewing our data.

26 | P a g e
Figure 32: Natural Gas Consumption VS Heating Degree Days (2006 - 2013)

27 | P a g e
4.12 Natural Gas Consumption Regression Analysis (Combined data from Battery + Fort)
Figure 33 - Natural Gas Consumption Regression Analysis Table
Figure 34 - Natural Gas Regression Analysis Graph
The regression plot above shows an almost direct correlation between natural gas consumption and
heating degree days. The Y-intercept of nearly 600m3 natural gas/period most likely represents gas
consumption at the restaurant, whose usage is not correlated to the heating season.
y = 504.64x + 597.19
R² = 0.7485
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NaturalGasConsumption(m3/period)
HDD/Day Average over Period
Natural Gas Consumption (m3/Period) vs HDD Regression Plot; From Union Gas
Billing Data; May 2012 to January 2014
Date Natural Gas (m3) HDD
20/01/2014 12994.91 881.32
16/12/2013 12899.82 564.93
18/11/2013 9163.62 365.78
18/10/2013 3522.649 100.29
20/09/2013 855.383 47.54
19/08/2013 1201.01 5.46
22/07/2013 1971.739 7.18
19/06/2013 453.925 98.32
22/05/2013 1692.764 238.38
19/04/2013 4468.329 479.24
20/03/2013 8768.8 568.55
20/02/2013 13069.27 867.83
16/01/2013 21840.43 663.45
17/12/2012 10909.29

28 | P a g e
4.13 Energy Usage – Modelled vs Actual
What follows is the most recent compilation of data we have recording actual consumption/cost and measure
consumption/cost for both natural gas and electricity (For the all individual buildings + combined three).
Electricity Natural Gas
Actual
(kWh)
Cost
Modeled
(kWh)
Actual (m3) Cost
Modeled
(m3)
Metered
Billed (No
Tax)
Modeled Metered Billed (No Tax) Modeled
Main Fort 441,000 $55,558 406,534
76,300 $23,400
29,020
Battery 68,000 $8,740 60,100 56,074
Total Fort +
Battery
509,000 $64,298 466,634 76,300 $23,400 85,094
Jul-Jun ('13-'14) Apr-Mar ('13-
'14)
Jul-Jun ('13-
'14)
Electricity Propane
Actual
(kWh)
Cost
Modeled
(kWh)
Actual (L) Cost Modeled (L)
Metered
Billed (No
Tax)
Modeled Metered Billed (No Tax) Modeled
Maintenance
Build.
63040 9836 56200
12,378 $8,516 12,528
Archive Building 5,329 $3,602 5,335
"Building #1" 389 $683 390
Total Stockade 63,040 $9,836 56,200 18,096 $12,802 18,253
Modelled values adjusted for Actual HDD's
Figure 35- Equivalent kWh & Natural Gas m3 for Fort

29 | P a g e
Observations:
 Our initial RetScreen model resulted in natural gas consumption that was higher than even the
predicted actual consumption for all three combined buildings. We adjusted the temperature
setpoints for the heating zones, reducing the un-occupied temperature to 10C. Now we see a much
more reasonable estimate of 85,094 m3 natural gas consumption (Combined Fort & Battery) as
compared to the actual combined total of 76,300 m3 (Combined Fort and Battery).
 The electric consumption of the Battery building, based on our UK and Bookkeeping data, contributes
an almost negligible amount to the overall electricity consumption of all three combined buildings.
This may indicate that we have under-estimated the electric consumption in our model, and will need
to modify it. This will depend on what values the Main Fort group comes up with for the electric
consumption of the heat tracing, and what assumed values we used for the discovery center.
 The actual HDD’s of the billing period has a 1% difference compared to the RetScreen 30-year
average.
 The Regression Fit between Natural Gas consumption and HDD’s for all three combined buildings is
0.75. This allows us to see the non-heating natural gas consumption of about 500-2000 m3/month.
 The benchmark value of 306 ekWh/m2 for the discovery center was obtained through a paper
describing energy efficiency in European office buildings. Since the discovery center has lots of glass,
similar to an office building, and European Climate is similar to Canadian, the number of 306 can
serve as a decent correlate.
 The e-KWh value of 35 obtained for the battery compares very reasonably to the REALpac office
building benchmark of 29 and the ENERGY Star prison benchmark of 45. This leads us to believe our
estimated e-kWh estimate is within the ballpark of accuracy. 35 e-KWh is by no means an excessive
usage of energy in comparison.

30 | P a g e
5.0 RETROFITS
The topic of retrofits will be explored next semester, so this section will for now remain simply as a
placeholder. Both general and battery specific retrofits were examined. The general energy savings
opportunities will be listed first, followed by retrofits specific to the Forward Battery. The following
list includes the upgrades that were examined. This section will outline the most economic retrofits
examined in the Forward Battery in order they appear on the list.
General Retrofits
 Electrical Peak Demand Reduction
 Computer Sleep-Mode
Specific Retrofits
 Heating Systems Upgrade
- 90% Efficient Wall Furnace Upgrade
 Temperature Set-Back Proposal
 Lighting Upgrade
- Incandescent & CFLS’s to LED’s
- Existing T8’s to lower wattage T8’s
 Building Automation System
- Engineering Store
- Washrooms
 Efficient Motor Retrofit
- Kitchen Range Exhaust Hood
- Walk-In Fridge
 Combined Retrofits
Renewable Energy Retrofits
 Solar Hot Water

31 | P a g e
5.1 Energy Savings Opportunities
Electrical Peak Demand Reduction
Through analysis of the electrical bills from the combined Fort + Battery + Discovery center, we
were able to determine how much is being charge for peak demand. The utility breaks up the
electrical usage of its consumers into 15 minute intervals. During each billing period, a customer
will pay what’s called a ‘demand charge’ based on how much instantaneous power was being used
in the highest-use 15 minute peak. Below is a graph that plots the peaks in demand at the
combined Fort + Battery + Discovery Center, over the months of Jul ’13 through February ’15.
The approximate annual cost due to peak demand charges was $14,500 during this time,
with an average monthly charge of $1000-$1400. This speaks to the value for additional
analysis to investigate possible retrofit and peak demand reduction strategies. Steve
Sottile with Utilities Kingston would be the main contact for further inquiry about
strategies. He also has access to the 15 minute interval consumption data.
The strange thing about this graph is that it remains relatively steady throughout the
seasons. We believe the winter peaks may be due to the large air conditioning loads at the
Discovery Center, with electrical loads and possibly electric resistance heating contributing
to the winter peaks.
As an aside:
Based on our bill analysis, we have found the average peak demand costs to be $10/kW.
Further information can be found in the spreadsheets compiled by the audit group.

32 | P a g e
Computer Sleep-Mode Retrofit
From the PowerMAN v5.x Software Admin Manual

33 | P a g e
Heating Systems Upgrade – 90% Efficient Wall Furnace (NW Battery)
There are currently 7 natural gas
furnaces the NW Forward Battery
building. This retrofit examines
upgrading the existing furnaces that
range in 70-75% efficiency, to a 90%
efficiency wall furnace. The wall furnace
for this retrofit is not currently available
in Canada but is expected to be
approved soon. The wall furnace for this
retrofit is manufactured by Empire and
is model PVS35N. Currently the capital cost of implementing this retrofit is
$25,900 and provides annual savings of around $1000 to achieve a payback of
26.7 years. The economics of the NW battery would increase if the estimations of
set points are lower than the actual set points.
The following table shows the number of furnaces to be replaced in each location:
Location Zone # of Furnaces to be Replaced
NW 1 1
NW 2 1
NW 3 1
NW 4 3
NW 5 1
The following table shows the estimations made in calculating the capital cost:
NW Battery - 90% Efficiency Furnace Retrofit
# of Units to be Replaced 7 Total Cost
Cost / New 90% Efficient Wall Furnace $ 3,250 $ 22,750
Labor Cost per Furnace $ 250 $ 1,750
Part Cost per Furnace $ 200 $ 1,400
Total Cost Estimate of Retrofit $ 25,900
The Following table shows the financials for implementing this retrofit:
Retrofit Description
Retrofit Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit IRR
Upgrade to High Efficiency
(90%) Empire Furnaces -
NW Battery $ 970 $ 25,900 N/A 26.7 1.8%

34 | P a g e
Heating Systems Upgrade – 90% Efficient Wall Furnace (SE Battery)
There are currently 7 natural gas
furnaces the SE Forward Battery
building. This retrofit examines
upgrading the existing furnaces that
range in 70-76% efficiency, to a 90%
efficiency wall furnace. The wall
furnace for this retrofit is not currently
available in Canada but is expected to
be approved soon. The wall furnace for
this retrofit is manufactured by Empire
and is model PVS35N. The SE battery has a faster payback due to higher
estimated set points, resulting in larger savings to be achieved. Upgrading the 7
furnaces in the SE battery projects annual savings of approx. $2200 with a
payback of approximately 11.5 years.
The following table shows the number of furnaces to be replaced in each location:
Location Zone # of Furnaces to be Replaced
SE 1 2
SE 2 1
SE 3 1
SE 4 3
Cost Estimations
SE Battery - 90% Efficiency Furnace Retrofit
# of Units to be Replaced 7 Total Cost
Cost / New 90% Efficient Wall Furnace $ 3,250 $ 22,750
Labor Cost per Furnace $ 250 $ 1,750
Part Cost per Furnace $ 200 $ 1,400
Total Cost Estimate of Retrofit $ 25,900
Retrofit Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit IRR
(90%) Empire Furnaces - SE
Battery $ 2,247 $ 25,900 N/A 11.5 10.7%

35 | P a g e
Temperature Set-Back Proposal
Existing Estimated Zone Temperature Set-Points
NG
TunnelTunnel
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
RETscreen
Model #1
RETscreen
Model #2
North West
Zone 1
Tunnel
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
South East
Non-
Heated
Zone
Non-
Heated
Zone
Non-
Heated
Zone
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
N.G +
Elec
NG
NG
NG
NG
Baseboard
Symbol
10 C
10 C
10 C
18 C
19 C
19 C
15 C
10 C
19 C
The temperature set-back option involves setting back the temperatures 5
degrees in The Engineering Store, Bathrooms, Office, and Dining areas from 8pm
to 8am. The remaining artillery, wine, and storage rooms were modeled with a 5
degree setback from the initial 10 degree estimated set-point for the entire
heating season. These savings are calculated based on the existing furnace
efficiencies. The NW battery has a faster payback period than the SE due to
higher estimated set-points. Programmable thermostats for the Engineering
store, Washrooms, Office, and dining areas were included in the capital cost. The
modelled annual savings achievable from this retrofit is almost $9000.
Retrofit Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit Simple
Payback
Retrofit IRR
Thermostat Set-back $ 13,292 $ 2,100 N/A 0.2 647%

36 | P a g e
Estimated Zone Temperature Set-Points with 5 Degree Setback Proposal
NG
TunnelTunnel
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
RETscreen
Model #1
RETscreen
Model #2
North West
Zone 1
Tunnel
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
South East
Non-
Heated
Zone
Non-
Heated
Zone
Non-
Heated
Zone
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
N.G +
Elec
NG
NG
NG
NG
Baseboard
Symbol
5 C
5 C
5 C
13 C 8PM – 8AM
19 C 8AM – 8PM
19 C 8AM – 8PM
15 C 8AM – 8PM
5 C
19 C 8AM – 8PM
14 C 8PM – 8AM
14 C 8PM – 8AM
14 C 8PM – 8AM
19 C 8AM – 8PM
10 C 8PM – 8AM
The following table shows the number of programmable thermostats to be
installed in each location:
Location Zone Programmable Thermostats Needed:
NW 1 1
SE 1 2
SE 2 1
SE 3 1
SE 4 1
Total 6
Cost Estimations
Programmable Thermostats Needed: 6
Cost/Thermostat $ 250.00
Total Equipment Cost $ 1,500.00
Cost/ Thermostat Install $ 100.000
Total Installation Cost $ 600.00
Total Cost: $ 2,100.00

37 | P a g e
Lighting Upgrade - Incandescent & CFLS’s to LED’s (NW)
The following table shows the number of bulbs to be replaced in each location:
Location Zone
# of Incandescents to be
Replaced
# of CFLS to be Replaced
NW 1 3 -
NW 2 - 3
NW 3 - 3
NW 4 8 -
NW 5 2 -
Cost Estimations - NW Forward Battery
Total # of bulbs to Replace 22 Total ($)
Cost per LED $ 6.00 $ 132.00
Incentive per LED $ 11.00 $ 242.00
Retrofit
Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit
IRR
Replace Incandescent and
CFL bulbs with LED's
(NW) $ 20.00 $ 132.00 $ 242.0 N/A N/A
The incentives provided by SaveOnEnergy cover the entire cost of the LED upgrade,
therefore the payback and IRR are N/A. No labor/Installation costs were attributed
to the lighting retrofits as it was assumed the installation would be done by
maintenance.

38 | P a g e
Lighting Upgrade - Incandescent & CFLS’s to LED’s (NW)
Location Zone
# of Incandescents to be
Replaced # of CFLS to be Replaced
SE 1 - -
SE 2 6 1
SE 3 10 -
SE 4 9 -
Cost Estimations - SE Forward Battery
Total # of bulbs to Replace 26 Total ($)
Cost per LED $ 6.00 $ 156.00
Incentive per LED $ 1.00 $ 26.00
Retrofit
Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit IRR
Replace Incandescent
and CFL bulbs with
LED's (SE) $ 179.00 $ 156.00 $ 286.0 N/A N/A
The incentives provided by SaveOnEnergy cover the entire cost of the LED upgrade,
therefore the payback and IRR are N/A. No labor/Installation costs were attributed
to the lighting retrofits as it was assumed the installation would be done by
maintenance.

39 | P a g e
Lighting Upgrade - Existing T8’s to lower wattage T8’s
Location Zone # of T8 bulbs to be Replaced
SE 1 34
SE 2 -
SE 3 -
SE 4 26
Cost Estimations
# of T8 Fixtures to Replace 60 Total ($)
Cost / T5 Fixture $ 2.00 $ 120.00
Incentive/ T8 Bulb $ 1.00 $ 60.00
Total Estimated Cost of Retrofit $ 60.00
Retrofit
Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit IRR
Replace T8 32W
Fixtures with T8 28W
Fixtures (SE) $ 86.00 $ 120.00 $ 60.0 0.7 155%
Combined savings for implementing the LED and lower wattage T8 upgrades are
shown in section 5.3: Technical and Financial Data of Retrofits. The two upgrades
combined result in approximately $300 of annual savings. The lighting retrofits are
available for incentives provided by SaveOnEnergy. No labor/Installation costs were
attributed to the lighting retrofits as it was assumed the installation would be done
by maintenance.

40 | P a g e
Building Automation System – Engineering Store
Similar retrofits have seen 35% energy reduction. A reduction of 35% was applied to
the electricity consumption estimated for the lighting in the Engineering Store.
NW Battery : Engineering Store
Number of Occupancy Sensors Needed: 1
Description Cost Total Cost
Occupancy Cost $ 112.69 $ 112.69
Relay Cost $ 41.70 $ 41.70
Labor Cost $ 150.00 $ 150.00
Total Estimated Cost of Retrofit: $ 304.39
Retrofit
Annual
Savings
Capital
cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit
IRR
Occupancy Sensors In
Engineering Store
$
61.00
$
304
$
40.00 4.3 28%
Building Automation System –Washrooms
Similar retrofits have seen 65% energy reduction. A reduction of 65% was applied to
the electricity consumption estimated for the lighting in the washrooms.
SE Battery : Washrooms
Number of Occupancy Sensors Needed: 2
Description Cost Total Cost
Occupancy Cost $ 112.69 $ 225.38
Relay Cost $ 41.70 $ 83.40
Labor Cost $ 150.00 $ 150.00
Total Estimated Cost of Retrofit: $ 459
Retrofit
Annual
Savings
Capital
cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback Retrofit IRR
Occupancy Sensors
in Washrooms
$
215.00
$
459
$
80.00 1.8 63.9%

41 | P a g e
ECM Motor Retrofit – Kitchen Range Exhaust Hood
To model the electricity consumption of the range hood fan motor, we first calculated the
airflow of the hood using ventilation design charts. Then, we found an exhaust hood with
equivalent airflow. From there, we determined what electrical consumption such a hood
has, and used that to model our retrofit.
Fort Henry Range Hood Exhaust – SouthEast Battery Building (Kitchen)
Our assumptions based on an equivalent model fan were as follows:
Using a case study that described a similar retrofit, we were able to estimate the potential
power reduction to be 50% with an ECM motor. If similar reductions were achieved at the
Fort kitchen, the following savings might be achieved:
Range Hood Retrofit
Reduction in power
consumption (%)
Dollar Savings
Retrofit Cost
Payback
(Years)Electricity Gas Totals
50 $ 109 $ 503 $ 612 $1,000 1.6
(Motor) (Make up Air)
• 19°C Setpoint maintained 24/7 in kitchen
• No Setback temperature
• 12 foot long grill, “Medium Duty Equipment”
• Fan = 3400CFM (12ft*300CFM/ft)
• ½” SP, 1HP motor
• Power = 1HP*746W/HP / 70% Efficient = 1066W
• Hours = 12 hrs/day for 4 months/year (1460 hours/year; 16.6% of the year)
• $500 motors; $250 labour; $250 controls

42 | P a g e
ECM Motor Retrofit – Walk-In Fridge
Walk-In Fridge Retrofit
Reduction in power
consumption (%)
Dollar Savings
Retrofit Cost
Payback
(Years)Electricity Gas Totals
50 $1,146 -$202 $944 $1,000 1.1
Baseline Assumptions:
• 19°C Setpoint maintained 24/7 in kitchen
• No Setback temperature
• Power consumption of fridge = 1869.04W
(Based on approximate equivalent industry benchmark.)
• Fridge operates 24/7, 12 months/year
• $500 motor; $250 labour; $250 controls

43 | P a g e
Combined Retrofits
Combining retrofits creates synergy between different energy consuming aspects of
the building. By combining the lighting retrofit, ECM motor upgrades, furnace
upgrades with setback proposal, and occupancy sensors in the engineering store and
washrooms, annual savings of around $11,000 can be expected. . Currently the
capital cost of implementing all of these retrofits is estimated at $57,000 and is
available to receive $718 in incentives. These combined retrofits are expected to
achieve a payback of 5 years.
Retrofit Options
Retrofit Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit
IRR
COMBINED
RETROFITS $ 11,064 $ 57,071 $ 718 5.1 21%
Heating
Upgrade to High Efficiency (90%) Empire Furnaces - NW Battery
Upgrade to High Efficiency (90%) Empire Furnaces - SE Battery
Thermostat Set-back Proposal
Lighting
Bulk Lighting Retrofit (1) - Forward Battery (LED&T8 Upgrade)
Building
Automation System
Occupancy Sensors In Engineering Store
Occupancy Sensors in Washrooms
Motors – Fans and
pumps Replace Walk- in cooler motor with ECM
Replace Range Hood Exhaust fan motor with ECM and digital controls

44 | P a g e
5.2 Renewable Energy Retrofit Possibilities
Solar Hot Water Retrofit
Although the cost of implementing solar hot water may be significant (around $1500/panel), the
savings generated are quite attractive. There is currently a Save on Energy incentive that offers
$320/m2 of installed solar hot water. Utilities Kingston also has an excess of panels that could be
procured at a very attractive cost.
Kitchen
We looked at the possibility of adding solar hot water panels to the southeast side of the kitchen
area. In a separate RetScreen model, we modelled a kitchen that would use approximately 900
L/day by serving around 100 meals/day. Currently, the model assumed an annual hot water cost of
$1500. By adding renewable energy in the form of 4 solar hot water panels to the system, the
kitchen area hot water cost could be reduced to about $1000 annually.
Bathrooms
We also looked at adding solar hot water to the bathroom area of the Battery (also on the southeast
side). Many people use the washroom during tour season. Visitors use the washrooms and wash
their hands with hot water that is currently supplied by an electric hot water tank. We modelled the
hot water in RetScreen to simulate around 600 people washing their hands daily, and the assumed
current cost is around $1100. By adding a 2 panel solar hot water system, the new cost of heating
the water is estimated to be reduced to about $800 annually.

45 | P a g e
5.3 Technical and Financial Data of Retrofits
Retrofit
Options
Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit
IRR
Heating
(80%) Cozy Furnace - NW
Battery $ 437.00 $ 13,650.00 N/A 31.2 0.4%
(80%) Cozy Furnace - SE
Battery $ 942.00 $ 13,650.00 N/A 14.5 8%
(90%) Empire Furnaces -
NW Battery $ 970.00 $ 25,900.00 N/A 26.7 1.8%
(90%) Empire Furnaces - SE
Battery $ 2,247 $ 25,900.00 N/A 11.5 10.7%
Thermostat Set-back $ 8,941.00 $ 2,100.00 N/A N/A N/A
Lighting Replace Incandescent and
CFL bulbs with LED's (NW) $ 20.00 $ 132.00 $ 242.0 N/A N/A
Replace Incandescent and
CFL bulbs with LED's (SE) $ 179.00 $ 156.00 $ 286.0 N/A N/A
Replace T8 32W Fixtures
with T8 28W Fixtures (SE) $ 86.00 $ 120.00 $ 60.0 0.7 155%
Replace T8 Fixtures with T5
Fixtures (SE) $ 86.00 $ 5,838.00 $ 750.0 59 -4.5%
Bulk Lighting Retrofit (1) -
Forward Battery (LED&T8) $ 285.00 $ 408.00 $ 588.0 N/A N/A
Bulk Lighting Retrofit (2) -
Forward Battery (LED&T5) $ 285.00 $ 6,126.00 $ 1,278.0 17 4%

46 | P a g e
5.3 Technical and Financial Data of Retrofits Continued
Retrofit
Options
Annual
Savings
Capital cost
Retrofit
Incentives
Retrofit
Simple
Payback
Retrofit
IRR
Building
Automation
System
Occupancy Sensors In
Engineering Store $ 61.00 $ 304 $ 40.00 4.3 28%
Occupancy Sensors in
Washrooms $ 215.00 $ 459 $ 80.00 1.8 63.9%
Envelope
Weather stripping for
Windows and draft
prevention on doors
10% reduction $ 614.00 $ 1,515.00 N/A 2.47 39%
Weather stripping for
Windows and draft
prevention on doors
50% reduction $ 3,069.00 $ 4,545.00 N/A 1.48 67%
Adding 1" Iso to
windows -$ 78.00 $ 630.00 N/A N/A N/A
Motors –
Fans and
pumps
Replace Walk- in cooler
motor with ECM $ 944.00 $ 1,000.00 5$/motor 1.1 94%
Replace Range Hood
Exhaust fan motor with
ECM and digital
controls $ 612.00 $ 1,000.00 5$/motor 1.6 61%
Renewables Solar Hot Water for
Kitchen $ 665.00 $ 7,500.00
Inc. in
Capital Cost
11.7 11%
Solar Hot Water for
Washrooms $ 530.00 $ 6,000.00 11.7 11%
COMBINED
RETROFITS
90% Furnaces, LED and
T8 Upgrade, BAS in
bathrooms and Eng
Store, Eff Motors, & 5
degree Temp setback $ 11,064 $ 57,071.17 $ 718.00 5.1 21%

47 | P a g e
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.
There still remains quite a deal of uncertainty as to the accuracy of our modelled values. The fact that utility
data from several buildings was combined into one meter and bill was a significant challenge to resolve. It
was not possible to examine utility data specific to just the Battery Buildings. Therefore, we could only
correlate historical utility data (from the combined buildings) to the sum of the results of all the teams’
software models. We thus had to wait until significant progress was made by all teams on their respective
software models before any general comparisons could begin to be made.
However, once the software models were complete, the teams’ adjusted their models to match historical
utility consumption. One such modification our team was required to make was to assume that the
temperature setpoint of unoccupied rooms was 10 degrees Celsius. This modification drastically changed our
model, reducing annual gas consumption nearly in half, to a much more reasonable level.
The sum of natural gas consumption for both the Battery Buildings and the Main Fort is about equivalent to
the expected historical sum. Electricity consumption is also nearly equivalent to historical utility data.
To have gotten a more accurate software model, we would needed to have made further investigations
into the following:
 To what degree does electric resistance heating contribute to the overall heating system?
 How accurate are our temperature setpoint assumptions?
 What electric loads have we not included in the model yet? (Heat Tracing?)
 Our modeled electricity consumption is still a litte low (60.1MWh modelled vs 68MWh
metered). Are there any sources of electric consumption that we are either under-
estimating or have failed to model?
 The accuracy of our setpoints and occupancy schedules has considerable effect on the
total Battery energy consumption sum. Further detail as to the actual, real operations of
the Battery complex would have given us even more accuracy in our software model.
Many assumptions were made in order to model the Battery section of Fort Henry. We could gain more
insight into the accuracy of these assumptions by installing temporary data loggers at the Battery.
Temperature loggers could collect data with which we would be able to scrutinize our table of ‘setpoints’.
Current loggers could record ON/OFF cycles of the natural gas furnaces and electric resistance heaters,
cluing us in into just how the heating system is operating. For example, one heating zone in the SouthEast
building uses electric baseboard and natural gas heat in a combination that is unknown to us. Datalogging
this heating system would give us insight into whether the assumption that we made, that the natural gas
furnace is the dominant heat source, was correct. Wherever we have made significant, major assumptions,
it would be wise to confirm these assumption come winter with datalogs.
A similar recommendation would be to temperature log each zone and set occupancy sensors to gather
actual data regarding setpoints, zone setbacks, and occupancy (time of use) data. Slightly changing the
setpoints and occupancy values in the software model dramatically change the annual consumption within
each zone. Getting accurate data in these cases would help eliminate any error in the models.
Communication with the building managers may provide insight in this regard.
In addition to data logging zones, and equipment within the zones, our team will begin to establish areas
within the Battery that could be candidates for future energy saving retrofits and what the benefit of
certain retrofits could be.

48 | P a g e
Appendix A: Retscreen Zone Designations
To the right is a RetScreen
data input screens that
describe the heating system
of a modeled space.
Heating setpoints for Zones 1-
5 (NW) and Zones 1-4 (SE) are
as indicated. The unoccupied
setpoint for all zones (both
buildings) is 10 degrees
Celsius.
An Aside: One of the major
uncertainties we encountered
in our modeling was to what
degree electric resistance
heating contributed to the
heating system. We were
uncertain of the set points,
operational schedule and
power consumption of the
electric resistance heaters. This
may have a significant affect in
the accuracy of our model.
NorthWest Battery Building Heating System Parameters
SouthEast Battery Building Heating System Parameters
Figure 36- Northwest Heating System Parameters
Figure 37- Southeast Heating System Parameters

49 | P a g e
Appendix B.1: Building Map Zone Designation (NorthWest Battery)
Engineer Store
#1
Engineer Store
#2
TunnelTunnel
Zone 1
Artillery Store #3
(Tickets)Zone 2
Artillery Rm #3Zone 3
Magazine A
Magazine B
Magazine C
Wine Rm #1
(Magazine D)
Wine Rm #2
(Expense
Magazine)
Zone 4
Zone 5
RETscreen
Model #1
North West
Figure 38- NorthWest Battery Building Zones

50 | P a g e
Appendix B.2: Building Map Zone Designation (SouthEast Battery)
RETscreen
Model #2
Zone 1
Tunnel
Zone 2
Zone 4
Zone 3
Women’s
Bathroom
Men’s Bathroom
Dinning Area #1
Dinning Area #2
Office
(Magazine L)
Hallway
Kitchen
(Magazine K)
Kitchen Prep
(Magazine I)
Dinning Area #3
(Magazine G)
Dinning Area #4
(Magazine F)
Dinning Area #5
(Magazine E)
South East
Expense
Magazine No.3
(Magazine D)
Figure 39- SouthEast Battery Building Zones

51 | P a g e
Appendix C.1: Table of Wall and Ceiling types with R-Values (NorthWest Battery)
Figure 40- Zones 1-4 Building Envelope

52 | P a g e
Zone 5
No. of Rooms: 2
Surface Areas (ft2)
North Wall: (interior wall)
East Wall: 222.5
South Wall: 370.0
West Wall: 222.5
Roof: 1306.0
Floor: 1087.2
Volume (ft3): 10764.3
Thicknesses (in)
N/S Walls: 48
E/W Walls: 24
Floor: 6.0
Roof: 3.3
Materials R-Values
N/S Walls: 2.87
E/W Walls: 1.87
Floor: 2.0
Roof: 3.3
Figure 41- Zone 5 Building Envelope Northeast
Building Dimension and R-value Assumptions
An R-value is a number associated with a materials ability to resist heat flow.
The R-value associated with the roof for all of the Battery buildings was estimated
using the following assumptions:
Building Material Thickness (in) R Value Total R-Value
Clay Brick 9 .93
3.31Crushed Stone 20 1.67
The R-value associated with the floor for all of the Battery buildings was estimated
using the following assumptions:
Building Material Thickness (in) R Value Total R-Value
Poured Concrete 6 1.64 1.64

53 | P a g e
Appendix C.2: Table of Wall and Ceiling types with R-Values (SouthEast Building)
Figure 42- Zone 1-4 Building Envelope

54 | P a g e
Appendix D: Table of Windows and Doors (NorthWest Battery)
Figure 43- Zone 1-5 Windows and Doors Northwest

55 | P a g e
Appendix D: Table of Windows and Doors (SouthEast Battery)
Figure 2- Zone 1-4 Windows and Doors Southeast

56 | P a g e
Appendix E: Lighting and Miscellaneous Electrical Loads (NorthWest Battery)
Room
Description
Equipment Description
Wattage/
Unit
Quantity Schedule ( m x d X h)
Total
kWh/Year
Gift Store /
Engineer Store
1 & 2 / Candy
Store - ZONE 1
Coldtech
Freezer
80.5 1 11 months / 24hrs day
637.56
QBD Cooler 91 1 11 months / 24hrs day 720.72
cash
register
57 4 11 months / 8hrs day
601.92
television 22.8 2 11 months / 8hrs day 120.384
Sony
Stereo
75.24
Pot Lights 8 54 11 months / 8hrs day 1,140.48
Fluorescent
Tube
300.96
Fake Oil
lamps
Inc. 11 3 11 months / 8hrs day
87.12
Exit Light LED 1 1 11 months / 24hrs day 8.64
Hot water 3000 1
Assumed 2.3 'ON'
hours per day 2500
Plug in
Heater 800 1 200 hours /year 160
Artillery/Ticke
ts - ZONE 2
Lights CFL 28 3 11 months / 8hrs day 63.36
Shell'
Room/Storage
- ZONE 3
Light CFL 27 3 11 months / 8hrs day 213.84
Exit Light LED 1 1 12 months / 24hrs day
8.64
Magazine A -
ZONE 4
Lights Inc. 11 3 12 months/1hrday 11.88
Magazine B -
ZONE 4
Lights Halogen 50 6 12 months/1hrday 108
Lights Inc. 40 3 12 months / 24hrs day 43.2
Magazine C +
Dining Areas -
ZONE 4
Lights LED 8 3 11 months / 8hrs day 63.36
Television 22.8 1 11 months / 8hrs day 60.192
Laptop 60 1 11 months / 8hrs day 158.4
Mini Fridge 40 2 12 months / 24hrs day 211.2
Wine Rooms -
ZONE 5
television 22.8 1 11 months / 8hrs day 60.192
cash
register
150.48
stereo 60 1 11 months / 8hrs day 158.4
Figure 45- Northwest Electrical Loads

57 | P a g e
Appendix E: Lighting and Miscellaneous Electrical Loads (SouthEast)
Room
Description
Equipment Type
Wattage/
Unit
Quantity Schedule
Total
kWh/Year
Expense
Magazine No.3
Tall Fridge 80.5 1 12 months / 24hrs day 695.52
Cube Fridge 64.5 1 12 months / 24hrs day 557.28
cash
register
451.44
stereo 60 1 11 months / 12hrs day 237.6
fans 6.3 2 11 months / 12hrs day 49.896
A/C 1110 1
3 months / 5 days / 3
hours day 199.8
Dining Room
#5
Stereo 50 1 12 months/1hrday 18
Exit Lights LED 1 1 12 months / 24hrs day 8.64
A/C 1110 1
hours day 199.8
Dining Room
#4
Speaker 50 1 11 months / 12hrs day 112
DVD 9 1 11 months / 12hrs day 35.64
A/C 1110 1
hours day 199.8
Dining Room
#3
Baseboards 1500
Assumes 2x 0.63h/d,
365 days. 689.9
Kitchen Prep
Stand Up
Fridge
1,301.18
Bigboy
Freezer
1,356.48
Industrial
Coffee
57 1 11 months /12hrsday
225.72
Pizza Shelf 40 1 11 months / 12hrs day 158.4
Carvel
Freezer
959.04
Ice Cube
Maker
138.6
Lighting T8 32 25 11 months / 12hrs day 3,160.00
Chest
Cooler
1,131.84
Figure 46 - Southeast Building Loads

58 | P a g e
Appendix E: Lighting and Miscellaneous Electrical Loads (SouthEast)
Room
Description
Equipment Type
Wattage/
Unit
Quantity Schedule
Total
kWh/Year
Kitchen
Walk in
Fridge
16,372.80
Dishwasher 18.8 1 11 months / 12hrs day 74.45
Microwave 25 1 11 months / 12hrs day 99.00
Belleco
Toaster
924.00
Cash
register
225.72
freezer 157 1 12 months / 24hrs day 1,356.48
Chest
Cooler
1,641.60
Range
Hood
1066 1 3696 hours
3,939.94
Hot Water 6000 1
Assumed 4.5 'ON' hours
per day 5,000.00
Office
Printer 5 3 11 months / 8hrs day 39.6
Lights Inc. 60 10 11 months / 8hrs day 1,584.00
Computers 100 3 11 months / 8hrs day 792
Speakers 17 1 11 months / 8hrs day 44.88
Fax 150 1 11 months / 8hrs day 396
Scanner 35 1 11 months / 8hrs day 92.4
Dining Room
#2
Light CFL 28 1 11 months / 12hrs day 102.96
Lighting Inc. 11 3 11 months / 12hrs day 130.88
A/C 1110 1
hours day 199.8
Dining Room
#1
Light Inc. 11 3 11 months / 12hrs day 130.68
Women’s
Bathroom
Lights T8 32 18 11 months / 8hrs day 1,520.64
Fan
Ceiling
Fan
158.4
Hot Water 3000 1
Assumed 4.5 'ON' hours
per day 5000
Men’s
Bathroom
Lights T8 32 16 11 months / 8hrs day 1,351.68
Fan
Ceiling
Fan
79.2
Estimate of 'Grinder' pumps 500
Figure 47 - Southeast Building Loads ext.

59 | P a g e
Appendix F: Utility Reconciliation
Weather Reconciliation:
An actual winter that is warmer than the usual will make the heating bills higher than
they would have been for the modeled ‘RETScreen year’ and so they have to be
adjusted. Utility consumption is adjusted by using RETScreen HDD (heating degree days)
and the actual HDD of the year covered by the utility bills (January 16 2013 – January 20
2014) with the following equation:
Weather Adjusted Annual NG Usage = Retscreen Annual NG Usage X ( HDD Actual)
HDD Retscreen
Values
Retscreen Heating Degree Days = 4182
Actual Heating Degree Days (2013-2014) = 4223.8
Retscreen Annual Natural Gas Usage = 57,074 m3
Weather Adjusted Annual Natural Gas Usage = m3
Weather Adjusted Annual
Natural Gas Usage
Retscreen Annual Natural
Gas Usage
Difference
57,644 m3
57,074 m3
.99%
The difference in annual NG usage calculated from Retscreen compared to the actual
NG usage is negligible. The miniscule difference in NG consumption will have little to
no impact on the numbers represented throughout this report.

60 | P a g e
Appendix G: Gas Meter Data (Fort + Battery)
Gas Meter: 102-5579 111-4383
Bill Period Start Bill Period End # of Days Meters Cubed Dollars Gas Meter ID
19/02/2014 19/03/2014 28 18329.07 $5,509.51 102-5579 111-4383
20/01/2014 19/02/2014 30 12994.912 $3,960.33 102-5579 111-4383
16/12/2013 20/01/2014 35 12899.821 $3,975.49 102-5579 111-4383
18/11/2013 16/12/2013 28 9163.62 $2,910.80 102-5579 111-4383
18/10/2013 18/11/2013 31 3522.649 $1,177.49 102-5579 111-4383
20/09/2013 18/10/2013 28 855.383 $336.04 102-5579 111-4383
19/08/2013 20/09/2013 32 1201.01 $390.39 102-5579 111-4383
22/07/2013 19/08/2013 28 1971.739 $579.87 102-5579 111-4383
19/06/2013 22/07/2013 33 453.925 $190.20 102-5579 111-4383
22/05/2013 19/06/2013 28 1692.764 $459.51 102-5579 111-4383
19/04/2013 22/05/2013 33 4468.329 $935.50 102-5579 111-4384
20/03/2013 19/04/2013 30 8768.7995 2623.96 no data; inferred avg
20/02/2013 20/03/2013 28 13069.27 $4,312.42 102-5579 111-4385
16/01/2013 20/02/2013 35 21840.433 $7,686.41 102-5579 111-4386
17/12/2012 15/01/2013 29 10909.294 $4,336.91 102-5579 111-4387
19/11/2012 17/12/2012 28 2279.085 $965.01 102-5579 111-4388
18/10/2012 19/11/2012 32 9485.149 $3,781.06 102-5579 111-4389
20/09/2012 18/10/2012 28 1900.812 $787.52 102-5579 111-4390
20/08/2012 20/09/2012 31 742.357 $316.37 102-5579 111-4391
20/07/2012 20/08/2012 31 1782.603 -$110.79 102-5579 111-4392
20/06/2012 20/07/2012 30 2444.576 $839.29 102-5579 111-4393
17/05/2012 20/06/2012 34 1385.418 $482.13 102-5579 111-4394
18/04/2012 17/05/2012 29 $1,435.91 102-5579 111-4395
Figure 48: Table of Natural Gas Cost and Consumption, 2012-2014. (UNION GAS bill data)

61 | P a g e
Appendix H: Utilities Kingston Meter Data
(Fort + Battery + Discovery Centre)
UTILITIES KINGSTON - ACTUAL ELECTRICAL BILLING DATA
Reading Date
Reading
Descript
ion
Days
Previous
Reading
Current
Reading
kWh
Consumption
Amount in $
Average
kWh/Day
$/Day
Avg
No Data
16/02/2012 Actual 31 3560 3770.06 42,011.87 $993.16 1,355.22 $32.04
16/03/2012 Actual 29 3770.06 3965.61 39,110.60 $792.91 1,348.64 $27.34
16/04/2012 Actual 31 3965.61 4140.59 34,994.59 $514.83 1,128.86 $16.61
16/05/2012 Actual 30 4140.59 4322.38 36,358.03 $627.63 1,203.51 $20.92
16/06/2012 Actual 31 4322.38 4563.39 48,202.40 $1,026.42 1,491.05 $33.11
16/07/2012 Actual 30 4563.39 4821.28 51,577.20 $1,580.45 1,719.24 $52.68
16/08/2012 Actual 31 4821.28 5111.11 57,966.53 $1,974.69 1,869.89 $63.70
16/09/2012 Actual 31 5111.11 5376.51 53,079.76 $1,496.97 1,712.25 $48.29
16/10/2012 Actual 30 5376.51 5579.99 40,697.56 $976.45 1,356.59 $32.55
26/10/2012 Actual 10 5579.99 5647.41 13,482.91 $311.65 1,348.29 $31.17
No Data
16/07/2013 Actual 34 1908.67 2221.44 62,552.80 $1,769.91 1,839.79 $52.06
13/08/2013 Actual 28 2221.44 2523.97 60,506.32 $1,806.81 2,160.94 $64.53
12/09/2013 Actual 30 2523.97 2804.27 56,059.28 $1,617.75 1,868.64 $53.93
15/10/2013 Actual 33 2804.27 3057.32 50,611.00 $984.22 1,533.67 $29.82
13/11/2013 Actual 29 3057.32 3282.59 45,054.20 $815.72 1,553.59 $28.13
12/12/2013 Actual 29 3282.59 3532.7 50,021.80 $1,179.71 1,724.89 $40.68
13/01/2014 Actual 32 3532.7 3837.48 60,956.00 $2,608.01 1,904.87 $81.50
12/02/2014 Actual 30 3837.48 4131.64 58,832.20 $4,543.86 1,961.07 $151.46
12/03/2014 Actual 28 4131.64 4424.14 58,499.40 $6,392.64 2,089.26 $228.31
14/04/2014 Actual 33 4424.14 4748.19 64,810.60 $3,041.72 1,963.96 $92.17
13/05/2014
Estimat
e 29 4748.19 4997.01 49,763.00 $1,347.94 1,715.97 $46.48
13/06/2014 Actual 31 4997.01 5279.47 56,491.80 $1,091.64 1,822.32 $35.21
15/07/2014 Actual 32 5279.47 5579.57 60,021.00 $1,940.45 1,875.66 $60.64
13/08/2014 Actual 29 5579.57 5873.39 58,763.80 $1,457.50 2,026.34 $50.26
15/09/2014 Actual 33 5873.39 6195.71 64,464.00 $1,358.58 1,953.45 $41.17
15/10/2014 Actual 30 6195.71 6447.6 50,378.20 $411.17 1,679.27 $13.71
No Data
Figure 49: Table of Electricity Cost and Consumption, 2012-2014. (Utilities Kingston Data)

62 | P a g e
Appendix I: Electricity Heating Degree Day Data
(Fort + Battery + Discovery Centre)
Heating Degree Day Data
Date
Days
Total
HDD's over
period
HDD/Day
Average
over period
Source of Data Avg kWh/day
16/02/2012
Utilities
Kingston
1355.22
16/03/2012 29.00 514.99 17.76 1348.64
16/04/2012 31.00 308.51 9.95 1128.86
16/05/2012 30.00 212.99 7.10 1203.51
16/06/2012 31.00 24.08 0.78 1491.05
16/07/2012 30.00 0.24 0.01 1719.24
16/08/2012 31.00 0.00 0.00 1869.89
16/09/2012 31.00 7.94 0.26 1712.25
16/10/2012 30.00 138.06 4.60 1356.59
26/10/2012 10.00 65.11 6.51 1348.29
31/12/2012 66.00 1143.02 17.32 Missing Utilities
Kingston Data
replaced by
estimated kWh
using
Bookkeeping
Data
1433.26
31/01/2013 31.00 706.17 22.78 1528.50
28/02/2013 28.00 662.51 23.66 1754.09
31/03/2013 31.00 591.27 19.07 1494.80
30/04/2013 30.00 398.52 13.28 1875.61
31/05/2013 31.00 152.51 4.92 1658.39
30/06/2013 30.00 59.51 1.98 1544.75
16/07/2013 16.00 0.03 0.00
Utilities
Kingston
1839.79
13/08/2013 28.00 2.78 0.10 2160.94
12/09/2013 30.00 17.23 0.57 1868.64
15/10/2013 33.00 126.40 3.83 1533.67
13/11/2013 29.00 331.18 11.42 1553.59
12/12/2013 29.00 521.95 18.00 1724.89
13/01/2014 32.00 816.26 25.51 1904.87
12/02/2014 30.00 828.42 27.61 1961.07
12/03/2014 28.00 740.05 26.43 2089.26
14/04/2014 33.00 639.61 19.38 1963.96
13/05/2014 29.00 315.2 10.87 1715.97
13/06/2014 31.00 105.09 3.39 1822.32
15/07/2014 32.00 13.32 0.42 1875.66
13/08/2014 29.00 4.67 0.16 2026.34
15/09/2014 33.00 35.47 1.07 1953.45
15/10/2014 30.00 121.94 4.06 1679.27
Figure 50: Avg kWh/Day extrapolated from Heating Degree Day Data and Utilities
Kingston/ Bookkeeping Data

63 | P a g e
Appendix J: Natural Gas ‘Heating Degree Day’ Data (Union Gas Bill Data)
Bill Period
Start
Bill Period End
# of
Days Total HDD's
over period
HDD/Day
Average
over period $/day Avg m3/day avg
20/01/2014 19/02/2014 30 876.88 29.23 $132.01 433.16
16/12/2013 20/01/2014 35 852.37 24.35 $113.59 368.57
18/11/2013 16/12/2013 28 564.93 20.18 $103.96 327.27
18/10/2013 18/11/2013 31 365.78 11.80 $37.98 113.63
20/09/2013 18/10/2013 28 100.29 3.58 $12.00 30.55
19/08/2013 20/09/2013 32 47.54 1.49 $12.20 37.53
22/07/2013 19/08/2013 28 5.46 0.20 $20.71 70.42
19/06/2013 22/07/2013 33 7.18 0.22 $5.76 13.76
22/05/2013 19/06/2013 28 98.32 3.51 $16.41 60.46
19/04/2013 22/05/2013 33 238.38 7.22 $28.35 135.40
20/03/2013 19/04/2013 30 478.24 15.94 $87.47 292.29
20/02/2013 20/03/2013 28 568.55 20.31 $154.02 466.76
16/01/2013 20/02/2013 35 867.83 24.80 $219.61 624.01
17/12/2012 15/01/2013 29 663.45 22.88 $149.55 376.18
19/11/2012 17/12/2012 28 484.61 17.31 $34.46 81.40
18/10/2012 19/11/2012 32 353.88 11.06 $118.16 296.41
20/09/2012 18/10/2012 28 147.49 5.27 $28.13 67.89
20/08/2012 20/09/2012 31 16.72 0.54 $10.21 23.95
20/07/2012 20/08/2012 31 0 0.00 -$3.57 57.50
20/06/2012 20/07/2012 30 0.24 0.01 $27.98 81.49
17/05/2012 20/06/2012 34 22.44 0.66 $14.18 40.75
18/04/2012 17/05/2012 29 205.21 7.08 $49.51 0.00
Figure 51: Natural Gas Heating Degree Day Data
The heating degree days were based on a set-point of 18 0C.

Fort Henry - Energy Audit Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Fort Henry - Energy Audit Report

Similar to Fort Henry - Energy Audit Report (20)

More from Michael Clarke

More from Michael Clarke (15)

Fort Henry - Energy Audit Report