Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park

BEng Energy Engineering
University College Cork
_____________________________________________
NE4020 – Final Year Project
Final Report
Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park
_____________________________________________
Conor Dorman – 112438728
Project Partner: Daniel Gallagher - 112382541
Supervisor: Dr. Paul Leahy
Date: 19/03/16

Improving the Energy Efficiency Final Report
of Fota Wildlife Park
1 | P a g e
Assessment
Student1 Name: Student2 Name:
Presentationandlogical
developmentof report(20)
Introduction,backgroundand
theory (20)
Technical qualityof report
content (60)
Report Total (100)
Logbook/performance (30)
(supervisoronly)
Marker Name _________________________________________________
Marker Remarks(if any) ________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Role (tickone):Supervisor_________ Secondmarker____________

2 | P a g e
Declaration
This report was written entirely by the author, except where stated otherwise. The source of
any material not created by the author has been clearly referenced. The work described in
this report was conducted by the author, except where stated otherwise.
Conor Dorman
Signature: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________

3 | P a g e
Executive Summary
The objective of ‘Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park’ is to firstly model
the current consumption of the park and identify possible areas of improvement such as
energy consumption, efficiency, sustainability and cost and subsequently propose methods of
energy or cost reductions. As Fota Wildlife Park contains several different high energy
consuming buildings, it was important to identify particular areas of potential improvement.
A particularly energy intensive area recognised was the heating system that provided warmth
to the giraffe enclosure which is home to twelve giraffes.
High-level electrical air unit heaters, currently being used in the enclosure, remain on at full
capacity for 3-5 months a year during the winter. In addition, the giraffe enclosure is out-
dated and two large shutter doors are kept open throughout the day to allow the giraffes to
roam freely. The combination of high electricity costs and lack of control for the heaters
results in the giraffe enclosure having significant heating bills each year.
Initially, the enclosure was modelled and the heat load requirement of the building was
calculated using data taken on-site, minimum external temperatures, a design temperature and
information available from the CIBSE Building Guides. The current heating system was
subsequently modelled in terms of costs and emissions based on electricity bills obtained
from Bord Gáis while the internal enclosure temperatures were measured using a logging
thermometer. The electricity system was found to be extremely costly, have high emissions
and also inefficient as it did not heat the enclosure to the giraffe ambient temperature.
A number of alternative heating systems were researched to determine the viability of each
option and to outline the advantages over the system currently in place. Calculations were
carried out to quantify the fuel savings made in terms of costs and emissions. Each system
was described in depth to inform users on how to correctly operate each system.
A biomass boiler system was chosen as one alternative which can be partially fuelled by
leftover giraffe feed which results in low fuel costs and zero emissions. Alternatively, a
natural gas boiler can be chosen which has a lower capital cost but higher emissions and fuel
costs. Underfloor heating was chosen as the best method of heat distribution for both the
biomass and natural gas boilers as it lowers the maximum heating load requirement and
provides a more natural bottom-up heat source. Either system could provide sufficient heat
for the 20 year extreme low temperature as well as having suitable control systems, which
feed into the BMS system, to regulate the heat output based on the enclosure temperature.
Sensitivity analysis was used to compare the payback year and fuel costs for the maximum
and minimum energy content of the wood chips in the biomass system. This helps Fota make
a better decision on the viability of the biomass system.
Finally, to compare each system, a Life Cycle Cost analysis was carried out for each which
combines capital costs, installation costs, yearly maintenance costs and fuel savings. The
LCCA helps the operators at Fota to make an informed decision on the most appropriate
system based on the payback period.

4 | P a g e
Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely thank Dr Paul Leahy, project supervisor, for his help and guidance
throughout the year.
Thanks to David Wall, postdoctoral researcher at ERI for carrying out the moisture content
analysis of the Willow and who helped prepare the wood samples for CHN analysis. Thanks
also to Barry O’Mahony from the microanalysis department for carrying out the CHN
analysis.
Thanks also to John Kingston, Financial Controller at Fota Wildlife Park, for his support
throughout the project as well as the staff in Fota who provided invaluable knowledge
regarding giraffes and their enclosure.
Other contributors included Tadhg Hickey, Arup, and Dominic O’Sullivan, UCC, who gave
us advice on a number of mechanical queries and Jerry Murphy, UCC, who helped with the
ultimate analysis.
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Name
BMS
Building Management System
CHP
Combined Heat and Power
UFH
Underfloor Heating
DS
Dry Solids
VS
Volatile Solids
ERI
Environmental Research Institute
UCC
University College Cork
MC
Moisture Content
CHN
Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen
LCCA
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
PV
Photovolatic

5 | P a g e
List of Symbols
Symbol Name Unit
QF Fabric Losses W
U U-Value W/m
2
K
A Area m
2
TDES Design Temperature ºC
TEXT Minimum External Temperature ºC
QV Ventilation Losses W
QI Infiltration Losses W
N Air changes 1/h
V Volume m
3
λ Thermal conductivity W/mK
t Thickness m
cp Specific heat capacity J/kgK
ρ Density kg/m
3
qv Air volume flow m
3
/s
B Boiler Rating W

6 | P a g e
Table of Contents
1. Introduction & Objectives..................................................................................................... 10
2. Background Information....................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Giraffe Enclosure requirements.......................................................................................... 11
2.2 Giraffe Enclosure in Fota Wildlife Park................................................................................ 11
2.3 Heating Systemin the Giraffe Enclosure ............................................................................. 12
2.4 Heating Load..................................................................................................................... 13
2.5.1 Biomass Wood Chip Boiler.............................................................................................. 16
2.5.2 Wood Chip Moisture Content.......................................................................................... 17
2.5.2 CHN and Combustion analysis......................................................................................... 18
2.6 Natural Gas Boiler............................................................................................................. 19
2.7 Underfloor Heating............................................................................................................ 20
2.8 SensitivityAnalysis ............................................................................................................ 23
2.9 Life Cycle Cost Analysis...................................................................................................... 23
2.10 BMS Systems................................................................................................................... 24
3. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Systems Currentlyin use.................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Site Consumption.............................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Modelling the Current Giraffe Enclosure Heating Load requirement..................................... 27
3.4 Modelling Electricity Cost for Giraffe Enclosure................................................................... 30
3.5 Internal Temperatures of the Giraffe Enclosure................................................................... 31
3.6 On-site Wood.................................................................................................................... 31
3.6.1 Moisture Content........................................................................................................ 32
3.6.2 CHN analysis and Ash content...................................................................................... 32
4. Results ................................................................................................................................. 34
4.1 Sizing the system using Underfloor Heating ........................................................................ 34
4.1.1 Worst Case scenario.................................................................................................... 34
4.1.2 Average Case scenario................................................................................................. 36
4.1.3 Underfloor heating pricing........................................................................................... 37
4.2 Option 1 - Biomass Wood Chip boiler and Underfloor Heating ............................................. 38
4.2.1 Sizing the Boiler.......................................................................................................... 38
4.2.2 Fuel Consumption and Savings..................................................................................... 38

7 | P a g e
4.2.3 Life Cycle CostAnalysis................................................................................................ 39
4.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis of On-site Wood Chip moisture content and energy content............. 39
4.3 Option 2 – Natural Gas Boiler and Underfloor Heating......................................................... 41
4.3.1 Sizing the Boiler.......................................................................................................... 41
4.3.2 Fuel Consumption and Savings..................................................................................... 41
4.3.3 Life Cycle CostAnalysis................................................................................................ 42
5. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 43
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 45
7. References........................................................................................................................... 46
8. Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 48
A. Monkey House Electricity Demand....................................................................................... 48
B. Breakdown of the electricity costs for the giraffe house ........................................................ 48
C. Giraffe Feed........................................................................................................................ 49
D. Energy Content sample calculation at 48.19% moisture content............................................ 50
E. Energy Content sample calculation at 20% moisture content................................................. 50
F. Underfloor heatingload requirement notes and assumptions................................................ 51
G. Underfloor Heating Pricing and Products.............................................................................. 52
H. Biomass Wood chip Boiler Quotation and Brochure.............................................................. 55
I. Biomass Wood Chip Boiler notes, assumptions and calculation............................................... 57
J. Natural Gas boiler Quotation and Brochure........................................................................... 58
K. Natural Gas boiler notes and assumptions............................................................................ 60
L. Preliminary Report .............................................................................................................. 61
M. Poster............................................................................................................................... 79
9. Logbooks................................................................................................................................ 80

8 | P a g e
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Autodesk Ecotect Analysis model of Giraffe enclosure and adjacent building................... 11
Figure 2: Perspective view of Giraffe Enclosure [3}
......................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Plan view of Giraffe Enclosure {3}
.................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Roof-mounted air unit heaters ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Metabolic Heat Gain of animals based on weight [6]
........................................................ 14
Figure 6: Typical Biomass Wood Chip boilerincluding auger and fuel supply [Appendix L]
..................... 16
Figure 7: Energy Content V Moisture Content [Appendix L]
.................................................................. 17
Figure 8: Vokera Mynute I system boiler [13]
.................................................................................. 19
Figure 9: Typical Underfloor Heating System [14]
............................................................................ 20
Figure 10: Comparison of the heat profile in a room of highlevel air heaters and UFH [16]
............... 21
Figure 11: Heating profile of UFH and high level air heaters [16]
...................................................... 22
Figure 12: Standard BMS System [Appendix L]
..................................................................................... 24
Figure 13: Daily Electricity Demand for meter serving Admin., Education and Giraffe buildings [19]
... 26
Figure 14: Internal and RequiredAmbient Temperaturesin Giraffe enclosure [19]
........................... 31
Figure 15: Payback period and total system cost portions ............................................................. 44
Figure 16: Annual fuel costs and emissions saving portions........................................................... 44

9 | P a g e
Table of Tables
Table 1: Typical properties and energy content of fuels [Appendix L]
................................................... 18
Table 2: U-Values for current giraffe enclosure [19]
........................................................................ 27
Table 3: Temperatures needed for heating load requirement........................................................ 27
Table 4: Heat Gain calculationfor giraffes.................................................................................... 28
Table 5: Heating Load requirement for current Giraffe enclosure .................................................. 28
Table 6: Notes and Assumptions for current Giraffe enclosure heating requirements ..................... 29
Table 7: Electric Air unit heaters in the Giraffe enclosure .............................................................. 30
Table 8: List of assumptions for Giraffe Enclosure electricity demand............................................ 30
Table 9: Moisture Content analysis.............................................................................................. 32
Table 10: Volatile and Ash content percentages of wood samples ................................................. 32
Table 11: Percentages of C, H2, N, ash and O2 of the wood samples............................................... 33
Table 12: Energy Content of wood samples at 48.19% MC ............................................................ 33
Table 13: Energy content of wood samples at 20% MC ................................................................. 33
Table 14: Maximum heatingload requirement of giraffe enclosure using underfloor heating.......... 34
Table 15: Average heating load requirement for giraffe enclosure using underfloor heating ........... 36
Table 16: Fuel andemissions breakdown of biomass boiler........................................................... 38
Table 17: Fuel costs andemissions savings................................................................................... 38
Table 18: LCCA of Biomass boiler and UFH ................................................................................... 39
Table 19: Fuel cost of wood chips annually based on energy content............................................. 39
Table 20: LCCA Biomass Boiler, 2.72kWh/kgenergy content ......................................................... 40
Table 21: Costs andemissions of natural gas boiler....................................................................... 41
Table 22: Fuel costs andemissions savings................................................................................... 41
Table 23: LCCA of Natural Gas boiler and UFH.............................................................................. 42
Table 24: Comparison of alternative systems................................................................................ 43
Table 25: Electricity costs for the giraffe house obtained from Bord Gais bills................................. 48
Table 26: Giraffe Feed bills from John Kingston ............................................................................ 49

10 | P a g e
1. Introduction & Objectives
The ‘Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park’ project serves to model the total
consumption of the park and to determine possible areas of improvement. From this analysis,
progress regarding consumption, efficiency, sustainability and cost can be determined.
All energy efficiency techniques and models utilised during the project are clearly explained
and analysed throughout the report with a number of different systems investigated and
explicated. Furthermore, all results of the energy efficiency process are presented in a clear
and understandable manner, highlighting savings made from each system in terms of
consumption, efficiency, sustainability and cost.

11 | P a g e
2. Background Information
2.1 Giraffe Enclosure requirements
With the average adult male and female giraffe having a height and weight of 5.3m, 1,200kg
and 4.3m, 830kg respectively, it is vitally important that the enclosure is of sufficient height
and area to house the giraffes [1]
. It is recommended that the optimal ambient temperature
near the giraffe’s body is 65°F/18.33°C or higher which is to be measured at the giraffe’s
chest level. This recommendation coupled with the fact that giraffes are highly susceptible to
cold temperatures (below 50°F/10°C) because they do not acclimate to the cold as effectively
as most other mammals, leads to the heating required in the enclosure to remain on
throughout the cold months [2]
.
2.2 Giraffe Enclosure in Fota Wildlife Park
The giraffe enclosure in Fota is home to 12 giraffes in total and the heating system used is a
high consumer of electricity in the park during the cold Irish winters. There are number of
reasons for the substantial heating requirement which include the following:
 The enclosure was initially built in 1990 and is outdated (extensions have taken place)
 The enclosure is heated using high-level electric air unit heaters
 Two of the three doors are kept open throughout the day for giraffes to come and go
 Ambient temperature of giraffes is 18.33°C as mentioned in section 3.1
 The peak height of the enclosure is 6 metres.
This information was gathered from the zookeepers and secretary on site.
Below is a model from Autodesk Ecotect Analysis of the giraffe enclosure with the adjacent
boiler room and other rooms shown. There is a slight gradient up to the zookeeper entrance
from ground level as shown below as the boiler house is lower than the enclosure.
Figure 1: Autodesk Ecotect Analysis model of Giraffe enclosure and adjacent building
The total giraffe enclosure is roughly 40m x 11.1m with a peak height of 6m. However, the
giraffes only take up approximately 240m2
of the 440m2
floor area with a zookeeper walkway
and other animal shelters taking up the remainder.
Figure 2 and 3 show two particular views of the giraffe enclosure.

12 | P a g e
Figure 2: Perspective view of Giraffe Enclosure
[3}
Figure 3: Plan view of Giraffe Enclosure
{3}
A number of doors are shown on the perspective view but only three of these doors can be
opened with the remainder of the doors sealed shut.
2.3 Heating System in the Giraffe Enclosure
At present in the giraffe enclosure a number of high-level electric air unit heaters are being
used with a total rated power output of 28.2kW, which was measured by the on-site
electrician in Fota. This type of heater is normally only used in restricted circumstances due
to their relatively high running cost [4]
. The heaters are located at high-level so as to be out of
reach of the giraffes, as shown in Figure 4, but this results in warm temperature at upper
levels in the enclosure with lesser temperatures at low level.
Figure 4: Roof-mounted air unit heaters

13 | P a g e
These systems are used in the enclosure for two main reasons:
 They are fast-acting
 Can be installed at high level out of reach of the giraffes
However, the present heating system has the following characteristics which show the
obvious limitations of them:
 Operate 24 hours a day
 For 3-5 months per year (i.e. this year from 28th
November 2015 – 31st
March 2016)
 Manually controlled
 No adjustments possible (either on or off)
It is obvious that the current system is highly inefficient and outdated. Newer systems allow
automatic control and also have lower fuel costs and emissions.
2.4 Heating Load
‘The heating load is the amount of heat energy that would need to be added to a space to
maintain the temperature in an acceptable range’ [5]
. Before a heating system is chosen, the
heating load required must be calculated. Using CIBSE Guides A and B this can be
calculated.
It is assumed heat is lost from a building in three ways:
 Fabric Losses
 Ventilation Losses
 Infiltration Losses
Heat is gained from a building in a number of ways:
 Occupancy Gains
 Equipment and Lighting Gains
 Solar Heat Gains
Each building has different levels of losses and gains but the total heating load required is as
follows: Heating Load = Gains – Losses
Fabric losses are losses made through materials such as walls, floors, roofs, etc. to outside or
adjacent rooms/buildings. To calculate this accurately, all wall, floor, roof, etc. areas need to
be known. The materials which make up each of these must also be known so a thermal
conductivity and thickness can be deduced. Furthermore, the design and minimum external
temperature are required.
The formula for Fabric Losses is:
𝑄 𝐹 = 𝑈𝐴( 𝑇𝐷𝐸𝑆 – 𝑇𝐸𝑋𝑇)
Where: 𝑈 =
λ
𝑡

14 | P a g e
Ventilation losses are the losses incurred in heating up external air to be used in a building.
Also known as mechanical ventilation, this adds to the overall heat loss and the formula used
is as follows:
𝑄 𝑉 = 𝑐 𝑝 𝜌𝑞 𝑣(𝑇𝐷𝐸𝑆 − 𝑇𝐸𝑋𝑇)
The last heat loss incurred by buildings is from infiltration. Naturally, airs leaks are due to the
building construction, opening and closing windows, etc. Normally a value of 0.5 air changes
per hour is assumed. The formula used to calculate infiltration losses is as follows:
𝑄𝐼 =
1
3
𝑁𝑉(𝑇𝐷𝐸𝑆 − 𝑇𝐸𝑋𝑇)
As mentioned above, there are a number of gains that are caused by the occupants,
equipment/lighting and solar gains. However, when calculating the maximum heating load,
the worst case scenario is chosen, therefore, the building requires most heating at night time
when lights and equipment are off and there are no solar gains. The only gain for the giraffe
enclosure is the occupancy gain.
The heat that a human body emits ranges based on the level of activity, however, in the case
of the giraffe enclosure, the occupants are giraffes, which have a different metabolic heat gain
than humans. Below in Figure 5 the heat gains of giraffes based on weight (in kgs) is shown.
Figure 5: Metabolic Heat Gain of animals based on weight
[6]

15 | P a g e
Assuming the giraffes are in a state of relaxation, i.e. sleeping at night, the formula used to
calculate the heat gain is as follows:
𝑄 𝐺 = 6.6𝑚0.75 [6]
Where:
 m is the weight in pounds
 QG is the heat gain in Btu/hr
1𝑙𝑏 = 0.4536𝑘𝑔
1𝐵𝑡𝑢
ℎ𝑟
= 0.293𝑊
After calculating both the heat gains and losses of the building and the occupants the
following formula can be used to calculate the required heating load:
HeatingLoad = Losses - Gains
𝑄 𝐻 = ( 𝑄 𝐹 + 𝑄 𝑉 + 𝑄𝐼) − (𝑄 𝐺)
The boiler is subsequently sized using the following formula:
𝐵 = 𝑄 𝐻(1 + 𝑥)
Where x is a common margin for sizing up of boilers – between 0.1 and 0.2[7] [8]
.

16 | P a g e
2.5.1 Biomass Wood Chip Boiler
Giraffes in wildlife and in captivity are known as ‘browsers’ as they predominantly eat leaves
and twigs. A full-grown giraffe can consume over 45 kg of leaves and twigs a day [9]
. Due to
this large quantity of giraffe feed required year-round, coupled with the fact that Fota has an
onsite wood chipper, a biomass wood chip boiler was highlighted as one alternative heating
option.
Wood chip boilers are mainly used to convert wood to energy using a method known as
direct combustion in which the wood is combined with oxygen and converted to carbon
dioxide and, thus in turn, releasing energy. A second method can also be used called
gasification or pyrolysis, although most boilers use the combustion method.
The wood chip boilers are lit automatically and continue to function without manual
intervention. The wood chips enter the chamber and are burned. This heat is used to heat cold
water pipes. In addition, smart boilers are pre-programmed to provide fuel supply and have a
thermostat which lets the user control the heating using a switch. Modern chip boilers are also
self-cleaning although the ash pan needs to be emptied regularly. Buffer tanks are also
recommended to be incorporated into the boiler system. Buffer tanks are added installations
used to store heat at a certain temperature for long periods of time. This helps in reducing the
on/off cycling of wood boilers. A buffer tank is particularly useful where the boiler does not
have full modulation capabilities [10]
.
Figure 6: Typical Biomass Wood Chip boiler including auger and fuel supply
[Appendix L]
Wood chip boilers require a stirrer to ensure constant supply because wood chips can vary in
size and shape. The principal task of the stirrer is to prevent the wood chips from forming
bridges. The storage for these boilers is usually adjacent to the boiler itself with an auger used
to automatically transport the fuel to the boiler, as outlined in Appendix L. Modern biomass
boilers retrieve the wood fuel automatically from the storage area and burn it. With efficiency
up to 90%, biomass boilers are similar to good oil or gas boilers. Lastly, biomass boilers have
zero emissions which is an added incentive to show a consumer’s environmental awareness
[11]
.

17 | P a g e
2.5.2 Wood Chip Moisture Content
‘Moisture content is defined as the loss of moisture when the fuel is heated to 105°C for 1
hour’. Wood chips used in modern wood chip boilers are generally required to have 30%
moisture content or less, as outlined in Appendix L. For wood chips with moisture content
greater than 30%, suitable storage conditions, such as a greenhouse during the summer which
is south facing, can reduce the value down to 20% according to Dr Jerry Murphy, University
College Cork. As shown in Figure 7 below, as moisture content decreases, the energy content
per kg of the wood fuel increases. This is because when wood chips are burned, the water
must first evaporate before they combust. Less moisture in the wood results in less energy
used for the water to evaporate.
Figure 7: Energy Content V Moisture Content
[Appendix L]
In Fota Wildlife Park, the giraffes feed predominantly off leaves and twigs of willow trees.
Several times during the year Fota order in large quantities of branches of willow for
feedstock but, after consultation with the zookeepers, around one-quarter of the branches
without the leaves remain. At present, the branches are stored adjacent to the giraffe
enclosure for 2-3 weeks and subsequently chipped and stored on-site for animal bedding or
removed from the site completely. This leftover wood is a suitable fuel for a biomass boiler.
The moisture content for the wood samples was calculated by David Wall in the
Environmental Research Institute. The method of calculating moisture content is quite
straightforward. Initially the samples are weighed and subsequently put into an oven at 105°C
for 24 hours. The samples are then removed from the oven and re-weighed. The percentage
moisture content is then calculated as:
𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛−𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛
* 100
This was carried out for two samples of the branches and two for the wood chips. An average
moisture content was calculated for the branches and the chips.

18 | P a g e
2.5.2 CHN and Combustion analysis
As outlined in Appendix L, obtaining the Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen
percentages of a substance can help determine the combustion capability of fuels.
The percentages of C, H2, N and O2 are determined by burning the dried substance in excess
oxygen. There are a number of traps which subsequently capture the carbon dioxide, water
and nitric oxide. Samples of leftover wood from the giraffe feed in Fota were collected to be
analysed and this was carried out with the help of David Wall in the Environmental
Research Institute who heated the samples in an oven for 2 hours at 550°C to calculate the
volatile solids. The volatile solids of a fuel are the solids lost in water or other liquids that are
lost on ignition of dry solids at 550°C. Using the samples from the oven in the ERI, Barry
O’Mahony in the microanalysis department in UCC calculated the percentages of C, H2 and
N of the samples.
Knowing these percentages, the modified Dulong Formula can be used to calculate the
energy content of the volatile solids of the fuel. This is known as the ultimate analysis and
determines whether or not the fuel is a suitable choice.
The modified Dulong Formula shown below provides the energy content of the fuel in kJ/kg.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 337𝐶 + 1419 ( 𝐻2 −
1
8
𝑂2) + 93𝑆 + 23.26𝑁
Typical values for the energy content of fuels are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Typical properties and energy content of fuels
[Appendix L]
Fuel
Net
Calorific
Value (CV)
by mass
Net
Calorific
Value
(CV) by
mass
Bulk
density
Energy
density
by
volume
Energy
density
by
volume
Energy
Content
GJ/tonne kWh/kg kg/m3
MJ/m3
kWh/m3
kJ/kg
Log wood
(stacked -
air dry: 20%
MC)
14.7 4.1 350-500
5,200-
7,400
1,400-
2,000
14823.5
Wood (solid
- oven dry)
19 5.3 400-600
7,600-
11,400
2,100-
3,200
8500
Wood pellets 17 4.8 650 11,000 3,100 16923.1
Miscanthus
(bale - 25%
MC)
13 3.6 140-180
1,800-
2,300
500-650 12812.5
House coal 27-31 7.5-8.6 850
23,000-
26,000
6,400-
7,300
28823.5
Anthracite 33 9.2 1,100 36,300 10,100 33000
Heating oil 42.5 11.8 845 36,000 10,000 42603.6
Natural gas
(NTP)
38.1 10.6 0.9 35.2 9.8 39111.1
LPG 46.3 12.9 510 23,600 6,600 46274.5
Wood chips
(30% MC)
12.5 3.5 250 3,100 870 12400

19 | P a g e
As shown above the average energy content of wood chips of 30% moisture content is 12,400
kJ/kg. All above information can be found in Appendix L.
2.6 Natural Gas Boiler
Modern natural gas boilers have efficiencies around 90% and have lower emissions per kWh
than electrical heaters. Previous to July 2008, the Building Regulations in Ireland did not
require that the efficiency of gas boilers be specified. Since then, companies such as Vokéra
in the UK have made significant strides towards more efficient boilers.
A natural gas boiler works similar to the biomass wood chip boiler in section 3.4.1. The main
difference is the fuel used is natural gas. The gas is streamed in from pipes in to the main and
a spark is used to ignite the fuel. As the fuel is ignited it begins to heat a cold water pipe
through the use of a heat exchanger and the water is heated to a temperature normally at
around 60ºC. As opposed to a nearby supply of fuel for the biomass boiler, the natural gas
boiler is supplied the gas from a mains gas pipe from a local supplier [12]
.
Figure 8: Vokera Mynute I system boiler
[13]
The Vokéra Mynute I shown above in Figure 8 has a modulation ratio of 10:1. A high
modulation ratio is enviable as maximises efficiency and comfort. For a 30kW boiler, a
modulation ratio of 10:1 means that the output can be reduced as low as 3kW when the
heating requirement is low. This change is automatic based on the thermostat readings,
saving energy and money [13]
.

20 | P a g e
2.7 Underfloor Heating
There are a number of methods to distribute the heat output from boilers. One of the most
common approaches is using radiant heaters. These heaters are normally installed at low-
level. For the giraffe enclosure these radiators are not an option as there is a risk of burn from
them to the animals. The previous system of heat distribution, as mentioned in section 3.3,
uses high-level unit air heaters which warm the room from the top-down. The primary
limitation to the current system is that heat rises, therefore the temperatures at low levels
might be insufficient for the giraffes. The distribution method proposed is underfloor heating.
Underfloor heating can be provided by having electric wires under the floor or else by
passing hot water pipes through the floor. As the systems outlined in section 3.5.1 and 3.6 are
used to heat water, underfloor pipes containing hot water is chosen as the most suitable
option.
Underfloor heating is a central heating system which uses pipes below the floor to circulate
warm water throughout the floor area in consideration. This hot water produces a heat source
capable of heating the air above the floor which subsequently rises to heat the room. This
form of heating is known as radiant heating as the heat emitted from the floor warms the
occupants and other objects rather than directly heating the air, as is the case with radiators
(convective heating).
The key components in an underfloor heating system are the manifold, the pipe and the
control sets (thermostats, wiring centre, etc.). A manifold is the outlet of distribution for the
water that comes from the boiler or other primary heat source. It distributes the water to the
pipe(s) that are connected to it. Since a boiler produces hot water at a temperature of around
70-80°C, a control set with a thermostatic mixing valve is used to reduce the temperature of
water to a suitable value for underfloor heating, usually around 35-40°C. A pump is also
contained in the control set ensuring that the water circulates through the pipes at the required
rate [14]
. This smart control saves energy and can be linked to the BMS system. Below in
Figure 9 the key components of underfloor heating are shown.
Figure 9: Typical Underfloor Heating System
[14]

21 | P a g e
There are several advantages of underfloor heating such as [15]
:
 No maintenance costs
 Invisible
 Easy to control (linked to BMS)
 Environmentally friendly
 Low cost
 More natural heating
Moreover, ‘the comfort level is found at considerably lower room temperatures during
heating due to the highly radiative energy of the underfloor heating system. This can be
lowered by 1 °C to 2°C as a result’ [16]
. This can significantly reduce the amount of energy
required to heat the building.
Although underfloor heating has a slow warm up time in comparison to other heating
methods, it is ideal for the needs of the giraffe enclosure as the heating remains on 24/7 for 3-
5 months a year. Figure 10 below compares underfloor heating with the current system (high
level electric air unit heaters).
Figure 10: Comparison of the heat profile in a room of high level air heaters and UFH
[16]
The current system is sized based on the requirements of the giraffes which is an ambient
temperature of 18.33°C as outlined above. However, the air unit heaters at high level could
be providing the required temperature close to the heater but not at low or medium level. This
is very dangerous for the giraffes as it could lead to illness. The temperature profiles of a
room based on high level heaters, underfloor heating and ideal heating is shown below in
Figure 11.

22 | P a g e
Figure 11: Heating profile of UFH and high level air heaters
[16]
As can be seen, the unit heaters are insufficiently heating the medium and low levels of room
and overheating high levels. The underfloor heating is much closer to the ideal heating profile
which is required in a building.

23 | P a g e
2.8 Sensitivity Analysis
‘Sensitivity analysis measures the impact on project outcomes of changing one or more key
input values about which there is uncertainty’ [17]
. A sensitivity analysis is used to compare
the magnitude of energy and cost impact that occurs when various features are altered. One
method of sensitivity analysis is the worst and best case scenario analysis. This involves
comparing the costs and emissions for the worst and the best possible solution. This type of
analysis shows the upper and lower limit of savings in cost and emissions as outlined in
Appendix L.
There are a number of advantages of sensitivity analysis which include:
 Its simplicity
 Identifies crucial areas for improvement
 Helps in planning
 As a quality check
Conversely, sensitivity analysis doesn’t take into account the probability of such an event
occurring [18]
.
2.9 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
To compare alternative systems to one another and to compare alternative systems to current
systems, a life cycle cost analysis is used. This type of analysis is used to determine the most
cost-effective option. Additionally, sensitivity analysis and life cycle cost analysis can be
combined to show the minimum and maximum payback times.
Life Cycle costs analysis for a heating system sum up the total costs of the system including:
 Capital Costs
 Installation Costs
 Maintenance Costs
 Additional Costs
Subsequently, the savings made for the system are deducted from the total costs. This is done
year by year until the payback time has occurred. Life Cycle Cost analysis is a useful tool for
companies and households which are deciding on the most suitable choice.
In this report, capital costs are shown as positive with savings deducted yearly from them.
Payback is achieved when a negative balance is left at the end of the year.

24 | P a g e
2.10 BMS Systems
BMS (Building Management Systems) are becoming more common in modern business as
they have the ability to automatically adjust systems which helps optimise the operation of
systems and services. Moreover, BMS systems can monitor the status of various systems and
environmental conditions. An added benefit of BMS systems is the ability to program
schedules of operation into the system, allowing for systems to be turned on automatically at
a time in the morning and switched off at business close. Alarms are used to highlight any
problems in the system allowing the user to quickly fix any problems or faults. Figure 12
below shows a standard BMS system.
Figure 12: Standard BMS System
[Appendix L]
As shown above, a BMS system consists of a central PC connected to a number of outstations
by communication controllers. A well programmed BMS system can be linked up to a
heating system with the benefit of optimised energy usage.
In the case of the giraffe house, the BMS system would automatically control the heating load
applied to the enclosure when inside air temperatures were outside the ambient temperature
range of 18.33°C. The BMS system in the giraffe enclosure would have a design temperature
in the range of +/-2°C whereas processes which needed an exact temperature could be
controlled to within +/- 0.1°C or less. All information taken from Appendix L.

25 | P a g e
3. Data Analysis
3.1 Systems Currently in use
At the beginning of the project a site survey was organised to give the students an insight into
the technologies used by Fota. Some of the technologies in operation are:
 Electrical
 Solar Thermal
 Geothermal
 Heat Pumps
 Biomass
 BMS systems
The vast range of renewable technologies shows that the park is very much involved in being
environmentally friendly.
The site consists of a number of animal enclosures which have different heating system
requirements. The tropical house is home to reptiles and is maintained at an uncomfortably
high temperature for humans but is suitable conditions for snakes, lizards, etc. The rhino
enclosure has a large indoor pool which is heated to meet the rhino’s needs. Both of these
systems are utilising energy efficient systems.
As previously mentioned, the giraffe’s require heating during the cold winter months but at
the moment the system is highly inefficient. The site secretary highlighted the need for a
modern energy efficient system in this enclosure.
3.2 Site Consumption
To identify possible areas of improvement in energy usage and efficiency, the site’s
consumption needed to be modelled. Data was provided from the park secretary John
Kingston and was analysed. In total, there were three separate electricity meters spread
around the site which covered the three zones in the park – the main administration
building/giraffe house, the new rhino area/Asian area and the restaurant side of the park. The
data for the meter which covered the administration, education and giraffe house was
provided and highlighted significant areas of improvement. The data was taken from the Bord
Gáis website. Figure 13 on the following page shows the electricity reading for this meter.

26 | P a g e
Figure 13: Daily Electricity Demand for meter serving Admin., Education and Giraffe buildings
[19]
Fota signed up for Bord Gáis electricity in late April of 2015 so the data obtained is from then
until the start of this report.
As can be seen in Figure 13, the daily electricity consumption before the unit heaters in the
giraffe enclosure varied between 1000-1200kWh. However, as highlighted in the red oval
labelled 1, there was a much higher initial electricity cost. Due to a leak in a pipe, Fota had
been paying much more for electricity for this time as the fault was not detected for almost
three weeks.
The dotted line above shows when the unit heaters in the giraffe enclosure were manually
turned on. The exact date when the heaters turns on varies each year as it is the zookeepers
who determine when heating is required for the giraffes based on external temperatures. As
the heaters are turned on, the electricity consumption increase by approximately 300kWh
daily. The heating requirement for the giraffe enclosure, as mentioned in section 2.2 and 2.3,
is very high and in the absence of suitable controls, the heaters are working at maximum
capacity throughout.
The drop down in electricity usage, shown as 2 in a red circle in Figure 13, could not be
explained by the Fota secretary who confirmed that the heaters in the giraffe enclosure were
still on.
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Demand(kwh)
Daily Electricity Demand
1
2
Giraffe Heater
on

27 | P a g e
3.3 Modelling the Current Giraffe Enclosure Heating Load requirement
As mentioned in section 2.4, it is very important to accurately model the current heating load
requirement so as to identify possible areas for improvement and subsequently size
alternative systems.
From section 2.4, the heating load requirement can be calculated as follows:
HeatingLoad = Losses - Gains
𝑄 𝐻 = ( 𝑄 𝐹 + 𝑄 𝑉 + 𝑄𝐼) − (𝑄 𝐺)
For the giraffe enclosure, there were no ventilation losses, QV, as the building relied on
natural ventilation during the day.
The fabric losses, 𝑄 𝐹 , were calculated initially based on the U-values for the current giraffe
enclosure as shown in Table 2 below.
Component U-Value
Roof 0.3311
Roof Lights 5.9699
Ext.Walls-Lower 0.3202
Ext.Walls-Upper 0.3283
Doors 6.7603
Ground 0.3450
Int.Walls- Upper 0.4894
Int.Walls - Lower 0.4657
Table 2: U-Values for current giraffe enclosure
[19]
The design temperature for the giraffe enclosure is the ambient giraffe temperature of
18.33°C, as outlined in section 2.1, while the minimum ground and external temperatures
were taken from ASHRAE weather data. The wall, floor, roof, door and window areas of the
enclosure were also calculated [19]
. The temperature of the boiler house was assumed to be
16°C as per CIBSE guide B for a light factory.
Temperatures (Degrees Celsius)
Min. External Min. Soil Temp Internal design Boiler House
-6.2 5.2 18.333 16
Table 3: Temperatures needed for heating load requirement
The infiltration losses, QI, were then added to the fabric losses with the external and design
temperatures the same as for the fabric losses. The air change rate, N, was assumed to be 0.65
from CIBSE Guide B, while the volume was calculated for the enclosure based on the
dimensions.
Finally, the heat gain from the 12 giraffes was calculated assuming 6 average female and 6
average males made up the 12.

28 | P a g e
Metabolic Heat Gain for Giraffes
Mass
(lbs)
Metabolic Heat
Gain (W)
Average per
giraffe (W)
Total Heat Gain (W) (12
Giraffes)
Average
Male 2645 713.2319887 627.1487632 7525.785159
Average
Female 1830 541.0655378
Table 4: Heat Gain calculation for giraffes
Table 5 shows the heating load requirement of the current giraffe enclosure while Table 6
outlines the notes and assumptions made.
Heating Load
Component U A TDES TEXT ΔT Q
Giraffe Enclosure
Ext.Walls- Upper 0.3283 288.32 18.33 -6.20 24.53 2321.89
Ext.Walls- Lower 0.3202 70.33 18.33 -6.20 24.53 552.47
Int.Walls - Ext.Room - Lower 0.4657 22.5 18.33 -6.20 24.53 257.06
Int.Walls -Ext.Room- Upper 0.4894 45 18.33 -6.20 24.53 540.24
Int.Walls - BoilerHouse - Lower 0.4657 5 18.33 16.00 2.33 5.43
Int.Walls - BoilerHouse - Upper 0.4894 10 18.33 16.00 2.33 11.42
Doors 6.7603 33 18.33 -6.20 24.53 5473.05
Roof 0.3311 391.2 18.33 -6.20 24.53 3177.61
Roof Lights 5.9699 74 18.33 -6.20 24.53 10838.09
Ground 0.3450 444 18.33 5.20 13.13 2011.71
Total FabricHeat Loss(QF) 25188.97
N V ΔT Q
Total InfiltrationHeatLoss(QI) 0.65 2176.49 24.53 11569.10
Total Heat Loss (QF +QI) 36758.07
Giraffe HeatGain (QG) 7525.79
Heating Load ((QF +QI)- (QG)) 29232.28
Table 5: Heating Load requirement for current Giraffe enclosure

29 | P a g e
Notes&
Assumptions:
1 Max. heatingassumedtobe requiredatnightwhen:
• Lowesttemperature
• Doorsclosed
• All giraffesinenclosure
• Nosolargain
• Lightsare off
2 Ext.and Soil Temperature informationtakenfromASHRAEWeatherData,forlowest
temperature in20 years, and Met EireannrespectivelyforCork
3 AmbientGiraffe Temperature =65 F or 18.333 C (Appendix L)
4 BoilerHouse Temperature assumedtobe 16 C (lightworkfactor
designtempCIBSEguide A table 1.5)
5 12 Giraffesintotal inthe enclosure
6 Roomsnextto giraffe enclosurehave noheatingandopendoorsexceptthe boiler
house
7 Average Male andFemale Giraffesweightsobtainedfrom section2.1
8 Airchange rate (N) of 0.65 assumedfora leakingbuildingof 500m2
(CIBSE Guide A
Table 4.17)
9 No ventilationsystempresent,onlynatural ventilationpresent
10 External Roomisfor storage and isat the same temperature asexternal
Table 6: Notes and Assumptions for current Giraffe enclosure heating requirements
As Table 5 shows, the heating requirement for the giraffe enclosure is very high at almost
30kW. Noticeably, this heating load is greater than the output of the unit air heaters
(28.2kW). This is examined in more detail in section 3.5. Sub meters mentioned in Appendix
L were installed in the giraffe enclosure and the monkey houses. The meter readings
confirmed the heating load for the giraffe enclosure of 28.2kW which was constant
throughout while the monkey houses heating load is shown in Appendix A.

30 | P a g e
3.4 Modelling Electricity Cost for Giraffe Enclosure
From the sub meter installed in the giraffe house and the readings taken from the on-site
electrician, it was calculated that the air unit heaters had a 28.2kW rating. To model the costs
associated with heaters, a table was compiled to calculate the monthly electricity costs as
shown in Table 7 below.
Column1 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
Total (kWh/day) 676.80 676.80 676.80 676.80 676.80 3384.00
Total (€/day) 74.31 74.31 74.31 74.31 74.31 371.54
No.of Days 3 31 31 29 31 125
Total energy(kWh) 2030.40 20980.80 20980.80 19627.20 20980.80 84600.00
Total Elec(€) 222.92 2303.52 2303.52 2154.90 2303.52 9288.38
MIC (€) 73.32 73.32 73.32 73.32 73.32 366.60
WinterDemand
Charge (€) 21.99 233.12 241.80 218.95 0.00 715.86
Gross (€) 318.23 2609.96 2618.64 2447.17 2376.84 10370.84
VAT@ 13.5% 42.96 352.34 353.52 330.37 320.87 1400.06
Net(€) 361.19 2962.30 2972.15 2777.54 2697.71 11770.90
Total Cost (€) € 11,770.90
Emissions(kgCO2) 38628.36 kgCO2
Table 7: Electric Air unit heaters in the Giraffe enclosure
The breakdown for the day and night rates, MIC cost, winter demand charge and emissions
are show in Appendix B. The assumptions for the unit air heaters electricity profile are shown
below.
Assumptions:
1 Total Heatload(28.2kW) obtainedfromon-site meters
2 Day rate from8am - 9pm (13 hours)
3 Nightrate from 9pm - 8am (11 hours)
4 Total demandformeter:150kW
5 MIC for giraffe ispercentage basedongiraffe elec.demandof total demand
6 Electricityemissionsvaryfromyeartoyear basedonfuel mixedusedin
powergeneration [20]
7 WinterDemandcharge appliedfromNovembertoFebruarybyBord Gais
Energy
8 Heatingturnedon28th November
9 Assume heatingturnedoff 31stMarch
Table 8: List of assumptions for Giraffe Enclosure electricity demand
With almost €12,000 being spent yearly on the electricity for the air heaters in the giraffe
enclosure, there is an obvious opportunity to reduce these costs by using an alternative
system. Secondly, the emissions from the production of electricity are very high. It is obvious
from this analysis that electrical air unit heaters are a poor choice for the enclosure.

31 | P a g e
3.5 Internal Temperatures of the Giraffe Enclosure
Based on the calculations for the heating load, in section 3.3, and the heat output measured on
site by the electrician of the unit heaters of 28.2kW, the giraffe house must not be adequately
heated in the cold winter months. Due to this discrepancy, it was decided to install a logging
thermometer in the enclosure. To have an accurate temperature reading at chest level of the
giraffes, the meter was installed above a doorway out of direct sunlight. The thermometer
gave temperature readings for every 30 minutes and the results are shown below in Figure 14.
Figure 14: Internal and Required Ambient Temperatures in Giraffe enclosure
[19]
It is obvious from Figure 14 above that the internal temperature in the giraffe enclosure is
inadequate and doesn’t reach the required temperature of 18.33°C, as mentioned in section
2.1. If the temperatures at the giraffe’s chest level are at the internal temperatures shown
above, then the temperature at floor level, where giraffes sleep, will be even lower. This can
cause discomfort for the giraffes and possibly illness or death by hypothermia.
3.6 On-site Wood
As mentioned in section 2.5.1, giraffes predominantly feed from leaves and twigs from wood.
Throughout the course of the year the 12 giraffes eat a substantial amount of the wood but
approximately a quarter of the wood remains, according to the zookeepers. As the data, as
shown in Appendix C, only has the invoice for the full years of 2014 and 2015, the average
weight of wood leftover in kilograms is calculated from the invoices of these two years only.
It is assumed that the wood leftover from November 2015 to October 2016 is used in
November 2016 and so on.
Due to the large quantity of leftover wood on average each year, the decision was made to
test the viability of the wood as a fuel for a biomass boiler. To calculate this, the moisture and
energy content of the wood per kg must first be calculated, as outlined in section 2.5.1 and
2.5.2 respectively.
0
5
10
15
20
Temperature(°C)
Internal Temperature and Required
Ambient Temperatures (23-24th
Feb)
Internal Temp
Ambient
Temp

32 | P a g e
3.6.1 Moisture Content
A number of samples of wood were taken to the ERI building in Cork to be tested. There
were two samples – the branches left after being fed to the giraffe, A, and the chips which
were after being fed to the giraffe and subsequently put in to the wood chipper, B. The results
of the moisture content analysis are shown in Table 9 below.
Date of
analysis Sample Label
Empty
crucible
Crucible +
substrate
Weight of
sample
Weight
after
24 h at
105°C Moisture
Average
Moisture
(g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (%)
30/11/15 Branch A1 77.809 95.744 17.935 87.158 47.87 48.04
30/11/15 Branch A2 77.681 92.631 14.95 85.425 48.20
30/11/15 Chips B1 81.177 89.915 8.738 85.760 47.55 48.19
30/11/15 Chips B2 76.885 85.033 8.148 81.054 48.83
Table 9: Moisture Content analysis
The analysis of the wood samples show that the moisture content is almost half of the total
sample. This high content is undesirable for a biomass boiler, although with proper storage,
this can be decreased to 20% as mentioned in section 2.5.1.
3.6.2 CHN analysis and Ash content
Using the initial samples taken from Fota the CHN analysis and ash content can be
calculated. The samples were placed in an oven at 550°C for 2 hours in the ERI and from this
the volatile solids were calculated. Table 10 below outlines the average volatile solids and
ash content percentages of the samples.
Date of
analysis Sample Label
Empty
crucible
Crucible +
substrate
Weight of
sample
Weight
after 2 h
at 550°C DS
Ash
Content VS VS/DS
(g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (%) (%) %
30/11/15 Branch A1 77.809 95.744 17.935 78.198 52.13 2.17 49.96 95.84
30/11/15 Chips B1 81.177 89.915 8.738 81.250 52.45 0.84 51.61 98.41
Table 10: Volatile and Ash content percentages of wood samples
The next stage of the analysis was to get the percentages of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and
Oxygen in the samples. The VS/DS of the samples is the sum of the percentages of Carbon,
Hydrogen and Oxygen. Therefore, knowing the Carbon and Hydrogen make-up of the fuel
from the CHN analysis, the Oxygen percentage can be calculated. Below in Table 11 the
CHN analysis results calculated by the Microanalysis Department in UCC are shown, as well
as the ash content from the ERI and the calculated Oxygen content.

33 | P a g e
Branch Chips
A B
C % H2 % N % Ash % O2 % C % H2 % N % Ash % O2 %
49.91 5.94 1.34 2.17 39.99 48.17 5.89 1.09 0.84 44.35
50.54 6.04 1.4 2.17 39.26 49.12 6.02 1.16 0.84 43.27
49.95 6 1.31 2.17 39.89 48.7 5.95 0.95 0.84 43.76
Table 11: Percentages of C, H2, N, ash and O2 of the wood samples
The C, H2 and N percentages were calculated as outlined in section 2.5.2. The energy content
of the dried samples was calculated and the values are outlined below in Table 12. The
modified Dulong formula from section 2.5.2 was used to calculate the energy content of the
volatile solids, dry solids and total solids. A sample calculation is shown in Appendix D.
Ultimate Analysis 48.19% MC
Branch (A) Chips (B)
VS DS TS VS DS TS
Energy Content
(MJ/kg)
18.19 17.43 9.06 16.75 16.48 8.54
18.67 17.89 9.30 17.45 17.17 8.90
18.30 17.54 9.11 17.12 16.84 8.73
9.16 MJ/kg 8.72 MJ/kg
2.54 kWh/kg 2.42 kWh/kg
Table 12: Energy Content of wood samples at 48.19% MC
Table 12 above outlines the energy content of the wood branches and chips for a moisture
content of 48.04% and 48.19% respectively. However, as outlined in section 3.6.1, suitable
storage conditions can allow the moisture content of the fuel to lower to 20%. Table 13 below
outlines the energy content of the samples at 20% moisture content.
Ultimate Analysis 20% MC
Branch (A) Chips (B)
VS DS TS VS DS TS
Energy Content
MJ/kg
18.19 17.43 12.20 16.75 16.48 13.19
18.67 17.89 12.53 17.45 17.17 13.74
18.30 17.54 12.28 17.12 16.84 13.47
12.34 MJ/kg 13.47 MJ/kg
3.43 kWh/kg 3.74 kWh/kg
Table 13: Energy content of wood samples at 20% MC
Reducing the moisture content of the samples decreases the total weight of the sample per kg.
Therefore the volatile and dry solids energy content remains the same while the energy
content of the total solids increases. Appendix E contains a sample calculation for the energy
content of the samples at 20% moisture content.

34 | P a g e
4. Results
4.1 Sizing the system using Underfloor Heating
4.1.1 Worst Case scenario
As mentioned in section 2.7, the design temperature of a building can be lowered by 1-2°C if
underfloor heating is used. Furthermore, installing underfloor heating requires added
insulation of 50mm to be placed on top of the existing concrete floor. The pipes are laid out
on top of this insulation with approximately 3 inches (70mm) of concrete screed poured on
top. Time is then needed for the concrete to settle. The U-Value of the floor has now
decreased from 0.345 to 0.2032 W/m2
K[19]
. Lastly, this added thickness of the floor has
slightly decreased the room volume to 2173.89m3
, down from 2176.49m3
.
The addition of underfloor heating not only provides a more natural heat profile in the
enclosure but it also decrease the heating load requirement in the enclosure. A full breakdown
of the heating load requirement is show in Table 14 below.
Heating Load
Giraffe Enclosure
Ext.Walls - Upper 0.3283 288.32 16.33 -6.20 22.53 2132.60
Ext.Walls - Lower 0.3202 63.77 16.33 -6.20 22.53 460.08
Int.Walls - Ext.Room - Lower 0.4657 22.50 16.33 -6.20 22.53 236.10
Int.Walls -Ext.Room- Upper 0.4894 45.00 16.33 -6.20 22.53 496.20
Int.Walls - BoilerHouse - Lower 0.4657 5.00 16.33 16.00 0.33 0.78
Int.Walls - BoilerHouse - Upper 0.4894 10.00 16.33 16.00 0.33 1.63
Doors 6.7603 33.00 16.33 -6.20 22.53 5026.88
Roof 0.3311 391.20 16.33 -6.20 22.53 2918.56
Roof Lights 5.9699 74.00 16.33 -6.20 22.53 9954.54
Ground 0.2032 444.00 16.33 5.20 11.13 1004.24
N V ΔT Q
Table 14: Maximum heating load requirement of giraffe enclosure using underfloor heating
Notes and assumptions for the heating load requirement are shown in Appendix F.

35 | P a g e
Comparing Table 14 with Table 5, it can be seen that the use of underfloor heating in the
giraffe enclosure has lowered the maximum heating load requirement by almost 5kW. This is
a significant energy saving.
To size the boiler required the following formula from section 2.4 is used.
𝐵 = 𝑄 𝐻(1 + 𝑥)
Assuming x = 0.1,
𝐵 = 25319.08 ∗ (1 + 0.1) = 27850.99𝑊
Therefore, any system that is chosen to provide heat to the enclosure must have a heat output
of 27.85kW at the most extreme 20-year cold weather occurrence of -6.2°C.

36 | P a g e
4.1.2 Average Case scenario
To calculate the fuel savings made for each year, the average heating load requirement must
be calculated. There are a number of methods to calculate this but the method chosen was to
get the average temperature over the period when the unit air heaters were on (28th
November
2015 - 31st
March 2016) and calculate the heating load requirement for that temperature. The
average temperature recorded at Roches Point was 6.8°C [19]
.
At present, the system being used can’t modulate the heat output so is constantly providing
28.2kW of heat regardless of the enclosure temperature. The system doesn’t change with
respect to the outside temperature. However, the new proposed systems allow the heat output
to vary according to the enclosure temperatures and so can save energy and money. Table 15
below shows the average heating load requirement of the giraffe enclosure.
Heating Load
Giraffe Enclosure
Ext.Walls- Upper 0.3283 288.32 16.33 6.80 9.53 902.24
Ext.Walls- Lower 0.3202 63.77 16.33 6.80 9.53 194.65
Int.Walls - Ext.Room - Lower 0.4657 22.50 16.33 6.80 9.53 99.89
Int.Walls -Ext.Room- Upper 0.4894 45.00 16.33 6.80 9.53 209.93
Int.Walls - BoilerHouse - Lower 0.4657 5.00 16.33 16.00 0.33 0.78
Int.Walls - BoilerHouse - Upper 0.4894 10.00 16.33 16.00 0.33 1.63
Doors 6.7603 33.00 16.33 6.80 9.53 2126.71
Roof 0.3311 391.20 16.33 6.80 9.53 1234.75
Roof Lights 5.9699 74.00 16.33 6.80 9.53 4211.45
Ground 0.2032 444.00 16.33 5.20 11.13 1004.24
N V ΔT Q
Table 15: Average heating load requirement for giraffe enclosure using underfloor heating
With a max heating load requirement of approximately 25kW, a boiler rating of almost
28kW and an average heating load of 13.1kW a suitable system could be sized and priced.

37 | P a g e
4.1.3 Underfloor heating pricing
As outlined in section 4.1.1, the underfloor heating system which is proposed to be installed
includes:
 50mm insulation covering 240m2
 76.2mm concrete screed covering 240m2
(18.288m3
)
 Underfloor piping.
The total cost including installation is quoted at €11,593.52. A full breakdown of the costs are
shown in Appendix G as well as the product brochures.

38 | P a g e
4.2 Option 1 - Biomass Wood Chip boiler and Underfloor Heating
4.2.1 Sizing the Boiler
The Gilles HPK-RA 35kW was chosen as the most suitable wood chip boiler for the required
heating load. With an efficiency of 93.7%, the maximum heat output is 29.7kW which can
sufficiently cover the worst case scenario heating load. A thermostat is also included which
can be adjusted to change the desired room temperature. The boiler comes with a 1000L
buffer tank which allows the heat output to be modulated. The quotation and brochure for this
boiler can be found in Appendix H.
4.2.2 Fuel Consumption and Savings
The Gilles Wood Chip boiler has zero emissions and can be partially fuelled by the on-site
wood which is left over after the giraffes feed on the twigs and leaves of the branches fed to
them daily. A full costs and emissions analysis of the boiler’s fuel consumption is shown
below in Table 16.
BiomassBoiler-
Wood Chip
Input(kW) 35
Efficiency 0.937
Average Output(kW) 13.086
No.hours 3000
Average Output(kWh) 39258
Input(kWh) 41897.55
Cost Fuel (€/kWh) 0.045
StandingCharge Yearly -
Fuel available fromon-site
woodchips(kWh) 41402.85
Cost Fuel (€) 22.26
EmissionsFuel
(kgCO2/kWh) -
EmissionsFuels(kgCO2) -
Table 16: Fuel and emissions breakdown of biomass boiler
Notes, assumptions and the calculation for the breakdown of the fuel and emissions analysis
are shown in Appendix I.
The average annual savings in fuel costs and emissions for the biomass boiler and underfloor
heating are shown in Table 17 below.
Average Annual fuel cost & emissions
AirUnit Heaters BiomassBoiler Savings
Cost 11770.90 22.26 11748.64 €
Emissions 38628.36 0.00 38628.36 kgCO2
Table 17: Fuel costs and emissions savings
Each year on average there will be a saving of almost 100% in fuel costs and 100% fuel
emissions.

39 | P a g e
4.2.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
To compare with other options, a life cycle cost analysis has been completed for the biomass
wood chip boiler and UFH including, capital cost, installation and maintenance. Based on the
average fuel consumption and the costs, a payback time can be calculated. Table 18 outlines
the LCCA of the biomass boiler.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Costs
Cost +
installation 33800
Maintenance 500 500 500 500 500
Total UFH cost 11593.52
Total Costs (A) 45893.52 500 500 500 500
Savings
Fuel Savings 11748.64 11748.64 11748.64 11748.64 11748.64
Total Savings
(B) 11748.64 11748.64 11748.64 11748.64 11748.64
Difference (A-B) 34144.88 -11248.64 -11248.64 -11248.64 -11248.64
Opening
Balance 0.00 34144.88 22896.24 11647.61 398.97
Total € 34,144.88 € 22,896.24 € 11,647.61 € 398.97 -€10,849.67
Table 18: LCCA of Biomass boiler and UFH
The biomass wood chip boiler will pay back in the fifth year and will cut emissions by 100%
each year.
4.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis of On-site Wood Chip moisture content and energy content
As the moisture content of the wood chips increases, the energy content of the total solids
decreases. As the energy content of the wood chip decreases, more fuel is required to be
bought yearly which decreases the annual fuel savings made.
Assuming that the moisture content of the wood chips is at its highest (48.19%) and the
energy content at its lowest (2.42kWh/kg), a LCCA was completed. This lower energy
content requires more wood chips to be sourced from a supplier, increasing the fuel cost.
Table 19 below compares the best and worst case scenario for the wood chips energy content.
Moisture Content 20 48.19 %
EnergyContent 13.47 8.72 MJ/kg
EnergyContent 3.74 2.42 kWh/kg
Average Loadperyear 11070.28 11070.28 kg
EnergyAvailable (onsite) 41402.85 26790.078 kWh
Heat outputrequired 41897.55 41897.55 kWh
Fuel required 494.70 15107.47 kWh
Cost of fuel/kWh 0.045 0.045 €/kWh
YearlyCostof fuel 22.26 679.84 €
Table 19: Fuel cost of wood chips annually based on energy content

40 | P a g e
There is a significant increase in fuel costs for the wood chip boiler for the lower energy
content, however the annual fuel savings are still significant compared to the air unit heaters
and the payback year is the same regardless as shown in Table 20.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis - 2.72kWh/kg energy content
Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Cost + Installation 33800
Maintenance 500 500 500 500 500
Total Costs (A) 45893.52 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00
Savings
Fuel Savings 11091.06 11091.06 11091.06 11091.06 11091.06
Total Savings (B) 11091.06 11091.06 11091.06 11091.06 11091.06
Difference (A-B) 34802.45 -10591.06 -10591.06 -10591.06 -10591.06
OpeningBalance 0.00 34802.45 24211.39 13620.33 3029.27
Total € 34,802.45 € 24,211.39 € 13,620.33 € 3,029.27 -€7,561.79
Table 20: LCCA Biomass Boiler, 2.72kWh/kg energy content
The sensitivity analysis has shown that the worst and best case scenario of the energy content
does not have a huge effect on the payback time of the biomass boiler system.

41 | P a g e
4.3 Option 2 – Natural Gas Boiler and Underfloor Heating
For the purpose of this report it was assumed that there is an existing natural gas supply to
Fota Wildlife Park.
4.3.1 Sizing the Boiler
The Vokéra Mynute I System 30kW boiler was chosen as a suitable boiler to meet the
required heating load. With a maximum heat output of 29.2kW, the boiler has 97% efficiency
and a modulation ratio of 10:1.The boiler also comes complete with a weather compensation
sensor which modulates the output based on the actual temperature as well as a flue kit. The
quotation for the boiler and the product brochure is contained in Appendix J.
4.3.2 Fuel Consumption and Savings
The natural gas boiler has lower emissions and fuel costs than the current electric air unit
heaters. The full emissions and costs breakdown are shown in Table 21 below.
Boiler- Natural
Gas
Input(kW) 30
Efficiency 0.97
Average Output(kW) 13.086
No.hours 3000
Average Output(kWh) 39258
Input(kWh) 40333.56
Cost Fuel (€/kWh) 0.05742
StandingCharge Yearly 93.38
Cost Fuel (€) 2409.33
EmissionsFuel
(kgCO2/kWh) 0.2047
EmissionsFuels(kgCO2) 8036.11
Table 21: Costs and emissions of natural gas boiler
The notes and assumptions for the above calculation can be found in Appendix K while
similar calculations were used for the previous system which can be found in Appendix I.
The average annual savings in fuel costs and emissions for the natural gas boiler and
underfloor heating are shown in Table 22 below.
Average Annual fuel cost & emissions
AirUnit Heaters Natural gas boiler Savings
Cost 11770.90 2409.33 9361.56 €
Emissions 38628.36 8036.11 30592.25 kgCO2
Table 22: Fuel costs and emissions savings
Significant savings are made using the natural gas boiler over the current electric air unit
heaters in terms of costs and emissions.

42 | P a g e
4.3.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
For comparison purposes, a life cycle cost analysis has been completed for the natural gas
chip boiler and UFH including, capital cost, installation and maintenance. Based on the
average fuel consumption and the costs of the system, a payback time can be calculated.
Table 23 outlines the LCCA of this system.
Year 1 Year 2
Costs
Capital Cost 815
Installation 400
Maintenance 108 108
Total Costs (A) 12916.52 108.00
Savings
Fuel Savings 9361.56 9361.56
Total Savings (B) 9361.56 9361.56
Difference (A-B) 3554.95 -9253.56
OpeningBalance 0.00 3554.95
Total € 3,554.95 -€ 5,698.61
Table 23: LCCA of Natural Gas boiler and UFH
Table 23 above shows that this system will pay back the year after being installed and will
significantly reduce annual emissions.

43 | P a g e
5. Discussion
The following table summarises the potential fuel savings and payback year of the proposed
systems. The systems outlined above in section 4 and the systems described by Daniel
Gallagher are included [19]
.
Biomass
Boiler &
UFH
Natural
Gas
Boiler &
UFH
Natural
Gas
CHP/Boiler
& UFH
Air
source
Heat
Pumps &
UFH
PV with
existing
heaters
Wind
with
existing
heaters
Year of Payback 5 2 3 2 15 20+
Total SystemCost
(€) 45,893.52 12,916.52 20,352.46 18,998.77 13,423.71 22,693.00
Annual Fuel Cost
savings(€) 11,748.64 9,361.56 9,349.16 9,650.97 967.47 791.33
Annual Fuel
Emissionssavings
(kgCO2) 38,628.36 30,592.25 30,590.54 34,213.29 3,025.60 3,290.96
Table 24: Comparison of alternative systems
For Table 24 above, the lowest to highest capital cost and fastest to slowest payback are
shown on a colour scale from green to red with green signifying lowest capital cost and
fastest payback. Meanwhile the highest to lowest costs and emissions savings are on a colour
scale from green to red with the highest savings being highlighted in green.
The natural gas CHP/Boiler & UFH, Air source heat pumps & UFH, PV with existing air unit
heaters and wind with existing air unit heaters are outlined in full in Daniel Gallagher’s
Report [19]
.
Modern micro-wind turbines have a 20 year life span and with a payback time of more than
20 years, this system is not financially feasible. In addition, the noise pollution of the turbines
could irritate the animals on the site. Both the wind and PV systems do not fully replace the
current electric air unit heaters and their output varies with weather conditions. In addition,
these systems feed into the electric air unit heaters which were found to be inadequately
heating the giraffe enclosure.
A low payback period is desirable, however, the payback period does not take into account
the subsequent savings after payback has been reached or the ‘time value of money’.
The only realistic renewable option to completely heat the giraffe enclosure is the biomass
boiler & UFH system. The capital cost of this is particularly high as a 35kW boiler cost
almost €34,000 compared to a 30kW natural gas boiler which is less than €1,000. Despite the
high capital costs, the fuel for the boiler can almost be fully sourced from leftover giraffe
feed. This sense of recycling food waste would display a positive green image of Fota.

44 | P a g e
Figure 15 below shows the portions of payback period and total system costs of each system.
For these two pie charts smaller portions are desirable as they represent a shorter payback
period and lower capital costs.
Figure 15: Payback period and total system cost portions
Conversely, a larger section of the pie chart is appealing for fuel savings in terms of costs and
emissions. Figure 16 below describes the portions of savings in terms of annual fuel costs and
emissions.
Figure 16: Annual fuel costs and emissions saving portions
Ideally, a system will have a small portion associated with payback and capital costs, and a
large portion for both the annual savings.
The Biomass boiler and the Air Source Heat pumps are the two systems that have the best
balance between payback period, total costs, annual costs and annual emissions. The natural
gas options, as previously stated, require a gas mains which would skew their results.

45 | P a g e
6. Conclusion
This report outlines the problems regarding the current heating system in the giraffe
enclosure. Not only is the combination of the costly heating system and its inefficiency a
major cause for concern, but also, the lack of control is a problem as it maintains a constant
heat output regardless of the enclosure temperature. The high-level heaters were found to be
insufficiently heating the giraffes at chest level which can cause illness or death due to
hypothermia. Baby giraffes are particularly susceptible to illnesses so it is important that the
low levels remain warm.
Underfloor heating was chosen as the most suitable method of heat distribution as it heats the
enclosure from the floor upwards and provides heating distributed evenly throughout the
floor area. This option also allows the design temperature to be set at 2°C less resulting in a
reduction of 5kW on the heating load. The initial costs of UFH are almost €12,000 but it is
the most suitable method of heating for the enclosure.
Based on Table 24 in section 5, the Natural Gas CHP/Boiler & UFH system and the Natural
Gas Boiler & UFH options seem to be desirable with moderate and low capital costs
respectively as well as short payback times. However, there is no natural gas supply to the
park and in consultation with Dominic O’Sullivan from UCC, installing a gas mains seems
very costly and would significantly increase the capital costs.
The PV and wind systems which would feed into the current electric air unit heaters would
not fully replace the enclosure’s current heating system and have very long payback times.
Both these systems aren’t feasible and do not have the potential to make significant savings
in terms of costs or emissions. Furthermore, these systems have a variable output as they
depend on the sunlight and wind. Although these systems would enhance Fota’s green image,
it is felt that the financial implications of installing them outweighs the benefits.
While the biomass boiler is quite expensive initially, it does make significant fuel costs
savings annually. In addition, the boiler has zero emissions and uses the leftover giraffe feed
waste. This option is very appealing as it would further enhance Fota’s green image. The
system will payback in year 5 and will subsequently save Fota more than €11,000 in fuel
costs annually. This system is definitely a viable option for Fota.
The Air source heat pumps & UFH system has the shortest payback time with moderate
initial costs. Additionally, the fuel emissions and costs savings are better than every system
except the biomass system with savings of almost 35,000 kgCO2 and €10,000 respectively.
Considering the low initial costs and short payback period, this system is the most favourable
for Fota.
In conclusion, I would only recommend two systems for Fota Wildlife Park. The Air source
heat pumps with UFH and the Biomass boiler with UFH which would both payback within 5
years. Fota can make an informed decision on their preferred choice based on whether they
would prefer an earlier payback time or a more environmentally friendly system which would
use the giraffe’s feed waste as a fuel source.

46 | P a g e
7. References
[1] Martin, L., 2013. Africa's Giraffe. Africa's Giraffe - A Conservation Guide, [Online]. 1, 4.
Available at: http://www.giraffeconservation.org/booklets.php [Accessed 09 March 2016]
[2] USDA, United States Department of Agriculture, 2014. Proper Giraffe Care in Cold
Weather. Animal Care Tech Note - Proper Giraffe Care in Cold Weather, [Online]. 1, 1.
Available at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/giraffes%20in%20the%20cold-
tech%20note.pdf [Accessed 09 March 2016]
[3] Google Maps. 2012. Google Maps. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.google.ie/maps.
[Accessed 09 March 16]
[4] Henderson, G, 2013. Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. CIBSE
Guide B: Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, 2013, 1-23
[5] BASIX, Building Sustainability Index. 2012. Heating and cooling loads. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/basixcms/basix-help-notes/thermal/heating-and-
cooling-loads.html. [Accessed 09 March 16]
[6] Engineering Toolbox. 2013. Heat Emission from Animals. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/animals-heat-emissions-d_1578.html. [Accessed 09
March 16]
[7] Henderson, G, 2013. Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. CIBSE
Guide B: Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, 2013
[8] Engineering Toolbox. 2013. Hot Water Heating System - a Design Procedure. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hot-water-heating-systems-d_188.html.
[9] Smith, P.A., 2014. Animal Fact Guide. Animal Fact Guide - Giraffe, [Online]. 1, 1.
Available at: http://www.animalfactguide.com/animal-facts/giraffe/ [Accessed 09 March 2016]
[10] SEAI, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. 2015. Wood Chip or Wood Pellet Boilers.
[ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.seai.ie/Power_of_One/Heat_Your_Home_For_Less/Replacing_Your_Boiler/Woo
d_Chip_or_Wood_Pellet_Boilers.html. [Accessed 09 March 16]
[11] SEAI, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. 2014. Biomass Boilers. [ONLINE]
Available at:
http://www.seai.ie/Grants/Renewable_Heat_Deployment_Programme/About_Renewable_He
ating/Wood_Chip_and_Wood_Pellet_Boilers/Biomass_Boilers/Biomass_Boilers.html.
[12] Explain That Stuff. 2015. Gas Central Heating Boilers. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/gasboilers.html. [Accessed 09 March 16]

47 | P a g e
[13] Vokéra. 2016. VOKÈRA MYNUTE I SYSTEM BOILER. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.vokera.ie/trade-professionals/boilers/mynute-i/. [Accessed 09 March 16]
[14] The Underfloor Superstore. 2015. What is Underfloor Heating. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.theunderfloorsuperstore.co.uk/what-is-underfloor-heating-3-w.asp. [Accessed 09
March 16]
[15] Allbrite. 2016. Rehau Underfloor Heating/Heating. [ONLINE] Available
at: http://allbrite.ie/rehau-underfloor-heating/. [Accessed 09 March 16]
[16] 2015. Introduction to Underfloor Heating/Cooling. Rehau Unlimited Polymer Solutions,
[Online]. 1, 46. Available at: http://allbrite.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Rehau-
Underfloor_heating_Information.pdf [Accessed 09 March 2016]
[17] Humphreys, K.K, 1995. Basic Cost Engineering. 3rd ed.: PRC Press
[18] Accountant Next Door. 2013. What is Sensitivity Analysis? [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.accountantnextdoor.com/what-is-sensitivity-analysis/. [Accessed 09 March 16]
[19] Gallagher, D., Final Year Report – Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park.
[20] SEAI, Sustainable Energy Authority. 2014. Emissions Factor. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.seai.ie/Energy-Data-Portal/Emission_Factors/. [Accessed 10 March 16].

48 | P a g e
8. Appendices
A. Monkey House Electricity Demand
B. Breakdown of the electricity costs for the giraffe house
Source
Total Demand(site
meter) 150 kW Bills
Giraffe Demand 28.2 kW Bills
MIC total 150 kVA Bills
MIC cost 2.6 € Bills
Elec.Day Rate 0.146 €/kWh Bord Gais
Elec.NightRate 0.067 €/kWh Bord Gais
WinterDemand
November 7.33 €/BillDays Bills
December 7.52 €/BillDays Bills
January 7.8 €/BillDays Bills
February 7.55 €/BillDays Bills
March 0 €/BillDays Bills
ElecEmissions 0.4566 kgCO2/kWh SEAI
Table 25: Electricity costs for the giraffe house obtained from Bord Gais bills
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Date
2015-11-22
2015-11-25
2015-11-28
2015-12-01
2015-12-04
2015-12-07
2015-12-10
2015-12-13
2015-12-16
2015-12-19
2015-12-22
2015-12-25
2015-12-28
2015-12-31
2016-01-03
2016-01-06
2016-01-09
2016-01-12
2016-01-15
2016-01-18
2016-01-21
2016-01-24
2016-01-27
2016-01-30
2016-02-03
2016-02-06
2016-02-09
2016-02-12
2016-02-15
2016-02-18
2016-02-21
Consumption(kWh)

49 | P a g e
C. Giraffe Feed
Post Date Tonnes kg
28/02/2013 7.38 7,376.12
31/03/2013 5.71 5,707.92
24/04/2013 6.48 6,476.08
30/06/2013 7.79 7,785.64
31/10/2013 3.88 3,878.96
30/11/2013 4.37 4,374.76
31/12/2013 4.60 4,604.99
31/01/2014 7.12 7,115.01
19/02/2014 4.00 3,995.01
30/04/2014 8.42 8,420.01
31/05/2014 7.38 7,379.99
09/09/2014 8.68 8,675.00
31/12/2014 5.71 5,713.51
31/01/2015 7.54 7,540.02
17/02/2015 5.27 5,269.99
06/03/2015 5.63 5,635.00
22/04/2015 7.96 7,960.00
31/07/2015 8.00 8,000.00
28/10/2015 5.40 5,402.78
Table 26: Giraffe Feed bills from John Kingston

50 | P a g e
D. Energy Content sample calculation at 48.19% moisture content
Sample B3: C = 48.7%, H2 = 5.95%, N = 0.95%, O2 = 43.76%
Modeified Dulong Formula for calculation of energy content of:
Volatile solids
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = (337 ∗ 48.7) + (1419 ∗ (5.95 − (
1
8
∗ 43.76))) + (93 ∗ 0) + (23.26 ∗ 0.95)
=
17,115𝑘𝐽
𝑘𝑔
=
17.12𝑀𝐽
𝑘𝑔
Dry Solids
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 ∗
𝑉𝑆
𝐷𝑆
= 17.12 ∗ 0.9841 = 16.84𝑀𝐽/𝑘𝑔
Total Solids
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡∗ 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 = 16.84 ∗ 0.5181
= 8.73𝑀𝐽/𝑘𝑔
All values taken from moisture and CHN analysis.
1 MJ/kg = 0.2777778 kWh/kg
E. Energy Content sample calculation at 20% moisture content
Sample B3:
Modeified Dulong Formula for calculation of energy content of:
Volatile solids
Same as Appendix D.
Dry solids
Same as Appendix D.
Total solids
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 ∗ ( 𝑛𝑒𝑤) 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 = 16.84 ∗ 0.8
= 13.47𝑀𝐽/𝑘𝑔
1 MJ/kg = 0.2777778 kWh/kg

51 | P a g e
F. Underfloor heating load requirement notes and assumptions
Notes&
Assumptions:
1 Max. heatingassumedtobe requiredatnightwhen:
• Lowesttemperature
• Doorsclosed
• All giraffesinenclosure
• Nosolargain
• Lightsare off
2 Ext.and Soil Temperature informationtakenfromASHRAE
WeatherData and Met EireannrespectivelyforCork
3 AmbientGiraffe Temperature =65 F or 18.333 C (as
previous)
4 BoilerHouse Temperature assumedtobe 16 C (lightwork
factor designtempCIBSEguide A table 1.5)
5 12 Giraffesintotal inthe enclosure
6 Roomsnextto giraffe enclosurehave noheatingandopen
doorsexceptthe boilerhouse
7 Average Male andFemale Giraffesweightsobtainedas
previous
8 Airchange rate (N) of 0.65 assumedfora leakingbuildingof
500m2 (CIBSEGuide A Table 4.17)
9 No ventilationsystempresent,onlynatural ventilation
present
10
The comfort level isfoundatconsiderablylowerroom
temperaturesduringheatingdue tothe highlyradiative
energyof the underfloorheatingsystem.Thiscanbe
loweredby1 °C to 2°C as a result

52 | P a g e
G. Underfloor Heating Pricing and Products
Piping
Product RehauPiping
Area 240 m2
Capital Cost/m2
12 €/m2
Capital Cost 2880 €
Insulation
Product
Thermafloor
TF70
Thermal
conductivity 0.22 W/mK
thickness 50 mm
Areaof 6 panels 17.28 m2
Areaof floor 240 m2
Capital Cost/6
panels 103.85 €
No.Panels 14.00
Capital Cost 1453.90 €
Concrete
Volume 18.288 m3
Cost/m2
82 €/m3
Capital Costs 1499.616 €
Installation 5760 €
Maintenance Yearly 0 €
Total 11593.52 €

53 | P a g e
Insulation

54 | P a g e
Piping
Concrete
Concrete dataobtainedfromCAD4th
Year Civil Notes
Installation
Quote obtainedfromRehauSalesteam

55 | P a g e
H. Biomass Wood chip Boiler Quotation and Brochure

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e
I. Biomass Wood Chip Boiler notes, assumptions and calculation
Notes&
Assumptions:
1 Left-overwoodonsite whichprovidesa
portionof biomassfuel supply
2
No.of hoursbasedon unitheaterhours
of operationforNov2015 to March
2016
3 Biomassemissions=0kgCO2/kg
4
On-site woodchipscanproduce
41402.8472 kWh peryear onaverage
5 Cost of woodchipsare 4.5c/kWh from
SEAI
Calculation
Average Heating requirement = 13.086kW
Efficiency = 93.7%
No. of hours of heating = 3000
Average Output = 13.086*3000 = 39258kWh
Average Input = 39258/0.937 = 41897.55kWh
Average fuel available from on-site wood chips = Energy content of wood chips at 20% MC *
Average load per year from Nov previous – Oct next (obtained from bills)
Average fuel available from on-site wood chips = 3.74kWh/kg * 11070.28kg = 41402.85kWh
Fuel required = 41897.55 – 41402.85 = 494.7kWh
Cost fuel required = 494.7kWh * 0.045€/kWh = €22.26
Emissions = Average input * emissions per kWh
Emissions = 41897.55kWh * 0 kgCO2/kWh = 0 kgCO2

58 | P a g e
J. Natural Gas boiler Quotation and Brochure

59 | P a g e

60 | P a g e
K. Natural Gas boiler notes and assumptions
Notes&
Assumptions:
1 StandingNatural gascharge obtrained
fromBord Gais
2
No.of hoursbasedon unitheaterhours
of operationforNov2015 to March
2016
3 Natural Gas emissions=
0.2047kgCO2/kg (source:SEAI)
4
Cost of natural gas is 0.05742c/kWh
fromBord Gais

61 | P a g e
L. Preliminary Report
BE Energy Engineering
Module NE4020 – Energy Engineering Final Year Project
Preliminary Report
‘Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park’
Students: DanielGallagher - 112382541
Conor Dorman –112438728
Supervisor: Dr. Paul Leahy
Submitted on 20th
January 2016

62 | P a g e
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 63
LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................... 64
Energy Auditing...................................................................................................................... 64
Other potential sources of financial savings.......................................................................... 65
Sensitivity Analysis.................................................................................................................. 66
BMS Systems.......................................................................................................................... 67
Giraffe Comfort Criteria and Feeding........................................................................................ 68
Wood as a Fuel....................................................................................................................... 69
Wood Pellet Boilers and Wood Chip Boilers.............................................................................. 69
Willow................................................................................................................................ 70
Moisture Content................................................................................................................ 70
CHN and Combustion analysis.............................................................................................. 72
STUDENT SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION.............................................................................................. 73
CONOR DORMAN - 112438728 ................................................................................................ 73
DANIEL GALLAGHER - 112382541 ............................................................................................ 74
PROJECT PLAN............................................................................................................................ 75
CONOR DORMAN - 112438728 ................................................................................................ 75
DANIEL GALLAGHER - 112382541 ............................................................................................ 75
Gantt Chart ............................................................................................................................ 76
REFRENCES................................................................................................................................. 77
Table of Figures
Figure 1 - Fota Energy Mix Diagram............................................................................................. 64
Figure 2 - Sample schematic of BMS system ................................................................................. 67
Figure 3: Typical moisture content values for wood pellets and chips [14]...................................... 72
Figure 4: Typical wood fuel characteristics for domestic use [14] ................................................... 72
Figure 5: Energy Contentof wood fuel Vs Moisture Content [14].................................................... 72

63 | P a g e
SUMMARY
The objective of the Fota Wildlife Park energy audit is to examine the park’s consumption
and subsequently subject the consumption to a sensitivity analysis wherein areas for
improvements in consumption, efficiency and cost can be determined. Two final year Energy
Engineering students, Conor Dorman and Daniel Gallagher, under the mentoring of Dr. Paul
Leahy began the project in late September. Fota Wildlife Park is spanned across 75 acres and
is home to various animals which all have different needs. Initially opened in 1983, the park
has a huge potential for energy efficiency improvement.
During the first semester, a detailed and extensive literature review was undertaken into the
extensive topic of energy auditing and sensitivity analysis. For the purpose of the preliminary
report, a significant number of papers, books and journals were read and researched to
improve knowledge of energy auditing.
A number of site visits were required over the course of the first semester. The initial visit
was used to give an overview of the park and an insight into the specific needs of some of the
inhabitants of the park. A second visit was organised to get a better insight into the giraffe
house which is an old building with poor insulation. Finally, a third and fourth visit were
required to install meters in a number of buildings and to check that the meters were working.
These visits give invaluable first-hand information of the site’s building and occupants.
The park is divided into three parts with each having a separate meter which collect the
energy use. The meter data for the administration buildings, giraffe house and some of the
monkey houses was obtained from Bord Gáis and graphically represented using Excel. To
obtain data for specific buildings such as the giraffe and monkey house, Efergy sub-meters
were installed. These buildings were chosen as they were deemed to have the most potential
for improvement.
As previously stated, the giraffe enclosure is an old, poorly insulated building. The main
problem with the giraffe building is that the building’s heating system is extremely
inefficient. Furthermore, the giraffes require a warm temperature during the cold Irish
winters. At the moment, electrical heaters are used in the giraffe house but the possibility of
wood pellet burners is being explored. The fuel for this burner is readily available as the
giraffes feed off the leaves and some bark of willow salis trees. Currently the remaining
branches and twigs are left on the site for long periods in a pile. Determining the viability of
using this willow to fuel the burner is ongoing with the help of the Environmental Research
Institute (ERI) and the Microanalysis Department in University College Cork (UCC).

64 | P a g e
LITERATURE REVIEW
The aim of this project is to carry out an analysis on the energy consumption trends at Fota
Wildlife Park. The total consumption will then be modelled and subjected to a sensitivity
analysis wherein areas for improvements in consumption, efficiency, sustainability and cost
can be determined. Due to the unique nature of the site, the energy audit being carried out is
not expected to yield the type of results that would be seen in a typical audit of a building or
plant.
Figure 1 - Fota Energy Mix Diagram
The energy mix above demonstrates the unique nature of energy usage on the site. Similar to
all energy systems, the park consumes two forms of energy; electricity and fuel. Thus,
considering the aim of this project is to look at improving the efficiency and reducing the cost
of energy usage on site, the project involves looking at both electricity and other fuels.
Energy Auditing
The aim of an energy audit is to analyse the energy flows of a site and to understand the
energy dynamics of the specific site. The aim is to look for opportunities to reduce the
amount of energy input into the site whilst ensuring there is no subsequent negative effect on
the output. As well as identifying the sources of energy use, an energy audit is used to
prioritize the energy uses from the greatest to least cost effective opportunities for energy
savings. [1]

Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park

Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park

Similar to Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park (20)

Improving the Energy Efficiency of Fota Wildlife Park