Analyzing the District – Part II
Alisdair McGregor, PE, LEED AP
Principal, Arup Fellow, Arup
Analyzing the District – Part 2
Alisdair McGregor
Getting to Climate Positive
3
Optimal Scales
Optimal Scales
Optimal Scales - ENERGY
Key Variables
Resource Intensity
Climate Intensity
Resource Cost
Mixes of Use
Space Availability
Optimal Scales - ENERGY
Key Variables
Resource Intensity
Climate Intensity
Resource Cost
Mixes of Use
Space Availability
Optimal Scales - WASTE
Key Variables
Resource Intensity
Climate Intensity
Resource Cost
Mixes of Use
Space Availability
Optimal Scales – WATER
Key Variables
Resource Intensity
Climate Intensity
Resource Cost
Mixes of Use
Space Availability
District Energy in Mixed Use
4. ECODISTRICT SYSTEMS
Choosing by
Advantages
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Weighting of Selection Criteria
FACTORS
System Economics (Business Case; Balancing CapEx & OpEx)
Weigh the costs and payback of each system
Community Finances (Effect on North Bayshore & Mt View Collective Budget)
Weigh the business potential of each system to North Bayshore and Mountain View
Infrastructure Aesthetics & Open Space
Assess the benefit or challenge each system may pose to the character or creation of public spaces
Reliability (Municipal System Enhancement / Disaster Prep)
Ability of each system to provide a backup to municipal infrastructure or to provide critical functionality in the event of
disruption
Regulatory Compliance (i.e. AB32, CEQUA, C3)
The extent to which each system can assist the city in achieving compliance with legislated performance objectives
Future-Proofing / Resiliency (Adaptability)
The ability of each system be effective & easy to use in potential environmental, regulatory, administrative or other future
conditions
Social Sustainability (Public Awareness / Access / Equality)
The extent to which each system can enhance public opportunities for use, involvement, exploration or enlightenment
Environmental Sustainability (Carbon/Resource Efficiency / Habitat & Ecology / Health)
Rate the benefits or reductions in damage to the natural world each system provides
Leadership (Innovation / Inspiration)
The ability for each system to provide an example to other municipalities and or bring positive press or references
WEIGHT
9
9
5
9
4
7
6
9
5
Conceptual
Design
CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGE
Systems Analysis
Analyzing District Systems
Review Existing Conditions
Demand
Supply
Baseline
Baseline
Gold +
Individual plant for each
building
Deep Green
District level systems
Sustainability, Risk, Financial
Conceptual
Design
ISTRICT ENERGY FEASIBILITY TOOL (US Version)
input
DEF ANALYSIS
reference
BASE SYSTEMS OUTPUT PROFILES | INPUTS
output
Program (sf)
Existing office
Phase 1
0
Phase 2
0
Phase 3
0
Phase 4
1,000,000
New Office Admin
254,607
256,768
715,697
0
Demand Volatility
New Office Engineering
710,022
735,698
2,232,864
0
Heating
100%
250% Heating
21.1
Existing office
80%
50%
Electricit
y
10%
0
41,000
12,000
0
Cooling
100%
300% Cooling
23.9
New Office Admin
80%
50%
10%
80%
50%
10%
80%
80%
80%
50%
50%
50%
10%
10%
10%
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
Total
Energy Utilization Intensities EUI
(kWh/sf/yr)
Existing office
New Office Admin
New Office Engineering
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
Efficiencies
( T o c o nv e rt f ro m E UI's t o lo a ds )
Weather Dependency
(%)
Setpoints (C)
New Office
Engineering
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
771,622
0
30,200
1,213,666
267,818
4,000,000
0
1,000,000
Heating
Cooling
Electricity
Total
Shapes (out of 1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.7
6.2
14.0
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.29
0.53
0.94
1.00
0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
3.0
7.2
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.29
0.53
0.94
1.00
0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
3.3
4.9
11.0
Existing office
New Office Admin
H New Office
0.12
2.5
23.9
12.7
19.2
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.29
0.53
0.94
1.00
0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
T
G Wellbeing
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.45
0.65
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.90 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.45
Housing
Central services
Existing office
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.27
0.35
0.40
0.50
0.80
1.00
0.80 0.50 0.50 0.65 0.80 0.65 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.20
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.55
0.70
0.85
0.90
0.85
0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.70 0.45 0.45
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.34
0.38
0.43
0.48
0.53
0.59
0.62 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.38
New Office Admin
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.34
0.38
0.43
0.48
0.53
0.59
0.62 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.38
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.34
0.38
0.43
0.48
0.53
0.59
0.62 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.98 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.38
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.50
0.70
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50 0.30
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.23
0.29
0.36
0.49
0.61
0.70
0.79 0.87 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.86 0.78 0.69 0.62 0.54 0.46 0.35 0.20 0.15
7.6
5.3
31.9
8.6
0.5
3.6
9.8
3.8
9.0
12.7
22.6
Value
Cooling Plant
5.5
Electrical Infrastructure
99%
New Building Efficiency
% Electric
Reduction
0%
Unit
Heating plant
efficiency
Cooling plant COP
C New Office
O Engineering
O Wellbeing
L
Electric conversion
efficiency
Housing
% Gas Reduction
0%
New Office Admin
0%
0%
New Office Engineering
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Use New Building Efficiency
Yes
100%
Heating Cooling
150,000
85%
Existing office
See Weather Dependanc y Basis
34,540
1,149,168
19.0
Electric
See 8760 sheet
150,000
Heating Plant
( O v e r C B E C S / O t he r S urv e y D a t a )
Weather
400%
9
10
11
12
13
Heating
3.1
2.1
2.8
16.2
7.3
8.3
18
19
20
21
22
23
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.30
0.50
0.70
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.50 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.50 0.30
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.50
0.65
0.80
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.50 0.35
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.80
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.50 0.35 0.20 0.20
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.50
0.65
0.80
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.50 0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.75 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.35 0.35
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.35
0.55
0.70
0.90
1.00
0.90 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.65 0.40 0.20
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.75 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.35 0.35
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
Total
51.1
25.8
40.6
63.2
13.6
38.1
17
0.35
E New Office Admin
L New Office
E Engineering
C
Electricity
13.9
7.1
10.9
5.2
3.6
8.9
16
Existing office
Existing office
Cooling
34.1
16.5
27.0
41.8
2.8
20.9
15
Central services
Daily Elec Profile
Systems Output Intensity
Existing office
New Office Admin
New Office Engineering
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
14
Daily Heating Profile
New Office Admin
New Office Engineering
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
New Office Admin
New Office Engineering
New Office Admin
New Office Engineering
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
1
2
Daily Cooling Profile
Existing office
Existing office
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Weather Dependency
Wellbeing
Housing
Central services
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Existing office
New Office…
Heating
THERMAL ENERGY CUP COMPARISON
Best System, Least Cost
$5
Best
Instantaneous Payback
0
5
10
15
20
No Payback
25-Yr Total Cost of Ownership
US$ million (in year spent)
Better
Best vs Good
Better vs Good
$0
($5)
Good
Economics
Discounted Payback vs Good
2016 US$ million
Choosing by Advantages
$10
GOOD
CapEx
BETTER
BEST
Cumulative 25-yr OpEx
Years
25
THERMAL ENERGY
Assumptions:
$5
2013 US million
Rough Comparison to
Building Scale
Discounted Payback vs Estimated
Bldg
$10
$0
0
1
2
3
4 <6 years
5
6 ~6 years
7
8
<4 years
9
10
Good vs Bldg
Better vs Bldg
($5)
Years
Best vs Bldg
1.Used % premium from VRF @ NBV:
($10)
• CapEx (CWL was $37.3M vs VRF $31.3M)
25-Yr Total Cost of Ownership
2.Energy performance predicted by DEF:
• 8.5% less energy needed annually
US$ million (in year spent)
• O&M (CWL was $.50/sf vs VRF $1.15/sf
BLDG
GOOD
CapEx
BETTER
25-Yr OpEx
BEST
Setting Strategies for Adaptation
19
Understanding Vulnerability
20
21
22
Here comes the commercial
• Two Degrees: The Built Environment and Our
Changing Climate
• www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415693004
24