Lccc Campus Strategic Energy Plan Presentation 120408

Lorain County Community College Integrated Pre-Feasibility Assessment Campus Strategic Energy Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations Board of Trustees Workshop Elyria, OH 5 th December 2008 Garforth International llc Energy Productivity Solutions

Campus Strategic Energy Plan Core Team Structure Global Perspective – Local Expertise Garforth International llc Energy Productivity Solutions

New Global Energy Realities Growing Impacts on USA ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Fundamentally different from past

Perfect Energy Storm When fears collide… Growing awareness – Growing Opportunity Rising Prices Avail ability Climate Change

Global Cost of Energy 11% of World GDP USA about $2.0 Tn (14% of GDP) What we pay for Gas, Electricity, Petrol.... Energy we use Energy we waste $ 7.0 Trillion

Energy Productivity US Total Energy Costs ~ $2 Trillion *Various US/EU Sources – 2006 sources Key to Competitiveness and Security Region Population GDP Energy Energy /Capita Energy /GDP USA 4.6% 25.9% 20.5% 100 100 EU 7.5% 31.1% 15.9% 47 65 Japan 1.9% 8.1% 4.6% 54 72 China 20.0% 6.1% 15.0% 17 312 India 17.1% 2.0% 4.7% 6 291 World 100% 100% 100% 22 81

Total US Energy Use Source: US DoE EIA Buildings 38.7% Industry 33.25% Transport 27.79% Coal Gas Domestic Oil Import Oil Uranium Renewable Homes Commercial Industry Transportation Buildings largest energy consumer

Effectiveness by Sector How well do we use our energy? ,[object Object],[object Object],Major potential for efficiency gains! *Indicative ratio of US average to global best practice Sector Energy Share Energy Use Index USA/EU Industry 33% 1.2 Buildings* 39% USA 2.5 CALIF 1.8 Transportation* 28% 1.4

Lorain County Community College Campus Strategic Energy Plan ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Wider perspective than HB 251 Agreed Objectives

Campus Strategic Energy Plan Recommendations vs Working Goals ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],2007 Energy Costs $ 1,717K Carbon Footprint ~ 19,600 MT Campus Ops Culture of Continuous Improvement

Lorain County Community College 2007 vs 2004 Energy Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Carbon Footprint 19,600 Metric Tons Utility used 2004 $K 2004 kWh e 2007 $K 2007 kWh e 2014 kWh e Target Gas $ 507 20,609,535 $ 609 19,330,432 NA Electricity $ 947 12,635,513 $ 1,108 13,821,165 NA Total $ 1,454 33,245,048 $ 1,717 33,151,597 NA Index / ISO $17.33/m 2 384 kWh e /m 2 $19.37 /m 2 375 kWh e /m 2 307 kWh e /m 2 Index / US $1.61/ft 2 125,561 Btu/ft 2 $1.80/ft 2 118,865 Btu/ft 2 100,449 Btu/ ft 2

LCCC Energy Use Benchmarks Austrian and Ohio Colleges ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Substantial Energy Efficiency Potential Lorain County CC ,[object Object],[object Object],Average

Campus Strategic Energy Plan Framework From Application to Fuel ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Decision Basis for Integrated Energy Plan Application Buildings Distribution Conversion Fuel

LCCC Campus overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Building Management System and Metering Gain Campus-wide Control ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Prerequisite for all other options

Evaluating energy needs Eight Buildings Modeled in Detail

Current Buildings Identifying Efficiency Opportunities ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Building Efficiency Many Opportunities Identified ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Improved control and metering is a Must

Typical Efficiency Measures Examples from multiple buildings ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Behavioral and Investment Based

Establish Baseline Example – University Center Develop Energy End-Use Profiles End Uses Needs Energy Indexes Seasonal Patterns Spot anomalies e.g. high plug loads

Base-to-Efficient Case Comparison Energy End-Use Energy efficiency increased by 37% Seasonal Demand Base Case Efficient Case

New Buildings and Expansions Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Aim should be to exceed these levels

Energy Supply and Distribution Multiple Choices Evaluated ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Energy Distribution Possible Expansion and Conversion to Hot Water

Steam to Heat Conversion Efficient and Simple ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Options Assessed and Rejected ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Should be regularly reassessed

Scenarios evaluated Investments in $ 000’s ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],# Scenario BMS Meters Efficiency DH Net CHP Biomass Totals 1 Base Case 2 Gain Control 1,485 270 $1,755 3 Add Efficiency 1,485 270 6,400 $8,155 4 Turbine + Steam 1,485 270 6,400 1,100 $9,255 5 Biomass + Steam 1,485 270 6,400 1,890 $10,045 6 Biomass/Abs + Steam 1,485 270 6,400 2,080 $10,235 7 CHP Engine + HW 1,485 270 6,650 1,170 840 $10.415 8 Biomass + HW 1,485 270 6,650 1,170 1,760 $11,335 9 Biomass/Abs + HW 1,485 270 6,650 1,170 1,985 $11,560

Analysis Results Conservative Scenario ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Is there another picture? # Scenario Invest $M NPV $M IRR % CO 2 MT CO 2 % reduce 1 Base Case 19,600 2 Gain Control $1.755 $1.14 9.8% 16,800 20% 3 Add Efficiency $8.155 $2.08 7.9% 13,900 28% 4 Turbine + Steam $9.255 $0.62 6.0% 13,600 29% 5 Biomass + Steam $10.045 $0.99 6.5% 11,700 40% 6 Biomass/Abs + Steam $10.235 ($0.32) 4.8% 11,400 42% 7 CHP Engine + HW $10.415 $2.43 7.6% 12,000 39% 8 Biomass + HW $11.335 $0.07 5.3% 11,500 41% 9 Biomass/Abs + HW $11.560 ($1.52) 3.7% 11,200 43%

Assumptions for Financial Assessment “Climate Risk” Scenario ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Many anticipate even greater impacts

Analysis Results Climate Risk Scenario ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Recommendation Basis # Scenario Invest $M NPV $M IRR % CO 2 MT CO 2 % reduce 1 Status quo 19,600 2 Gain Control $1.755 $5.05 18.5% 16,800 20% 3 Add Efficiency $8.155 $9.37 14.2% 13,900 28% 4 Turbine + Steam $9.255 $10.03 13.6% 13,600 29% 5 Biomass + Steam $10.045 $10.57 13.8% 11,700 40% 6 Biomass/Abs + Steam $10.235 $9.08 12.7% 11,400 42% 7 CHP Engine + HW $10.415 $13.89 14.7% 12,000 39% 8 Biomass + HW $11.335 $10.00 12.5% 11,500 41% 9 Biomass/Abs + HW $11.560 $8.40 11.4% 11,200 43%

Investment Cash Flows Conservative Climate Risk Control and Efficiency Hot water DH with CHP

Creating an Energy Efficient Culture ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Additional 5% to 10% Efficiency Gain!

Preliminary Recommendations Energy and Climate ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Campus Strategic Energy Plan 2014 Indications Exceed HB 251 ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Culture of Continuous Improvement

Lccc Campus Strategic Energy Plan Presentation 120408

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Lccc Campus Strategic Energy Plan Presentation 120408

Similar to Lccc Campus Strategic Energy Plan Presentation 120408 (20)

More from Lorain County Community College

More from Lorain County Community College (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lccc Campus Strategic Energy Plan Presentation 120408