MIT OCW CEE 1-964 - Design For Sustainability - Energy in Buildings

Buildings and Energy
Les Norford Building Technology Program Department of Architecture Massachusetts Institute of Technology CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability November 1, 2006
Outline
1. Buildings and energy some data 2. Residential buildings 3. Commercial buildings 4. Buildings in other (mainly developing) countries 5. Is current progress good enough?
CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability
Global energy consumption

500.000 450.000 400.000 350.000 300.000 EJ 250.000 200.000 150.000 100.000 50.000 0.000
19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02
450 EJ = 14.3 TW
World Total North America Central/South America Western Europe Eastern Europe Former USSR Middle East Africa Asia and Oceania
Year
Does energy use correlate with quality of life?

Energy Consumption per Capita (MJ/Day) 100 Physical Quality of Life Index 80 Agric Exporter Other Agric Primary Exporter Oil Exporter Industrialized Countries Balanced Economics 0 40 80 120 160 200
60 40 20 0
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Kilowatts per Capita
Figure by MIT OCW.
Source: Goldemberg et al.
Transport
Residential buildings
27% 34%
Industry
21% 18%
Commercial buildings
Figure by MIT OCW.
U.S. energy end-use

Total energy buildings 39%
Transport
0%
Industry
29%
Residential buildings
36% 35%
Electricity buildings 71%

Source:EIA
Commercial buildings
CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability Figure by MIT OCW.
U.S. residential and commercial building energy use intensities

2.5 Energy use intensity, GJ/m2 2.0
1.5 residential primary residential site 1.0
Apparently not a lot of progress in 25 years
0.5
0.0 1975
1980
1985
1990 year
1995
2000
2005
2.5
Energy use intensity, GJ/m2
1.5
commercial primary commercial site
0.5
1975
1980
1985
1990 year
1995
2000
2005
1 GJ/m2 = 277 kWh/m2
Residential buildings end-use energy 2003
Commercial buildings end-use energy 2003
2. Residential buildings: savings potential in new construction

30%: little or no increase in first cost 50%: about the same life-cycle cost Net-zero energy or carbon neutral: much harder How? INTEGRATED, SYSTEMS DESIGN
Better walls Better windows Smaller HVAC equipment Better appliances
Savings relative to early 1990s benchmark
Doing better with houses: lots of insulation!
Flickr photo courtesy of Smalloy.

Taking advantage of free heating for elfhouse

Temperature (degrees C) -10 0 00:13.0 45:13.0 30:13.0 15:13.0 00:13.0 45:13.0 30:13.0 15:13.0 00:13.0 45:13.0 30:13.0 15:13.0 00:13.0 45:13.0 30:13.0 15:13.0 00:13.0 45:13.0 30:13.0 15:13.0 00:13.0 45:13.0 30:13.0 15:13.0 00:13.0 Time (hours) 10 20 30 40 50 60
Average Temperature First Week = 16.9 deg C Average Temperature Second Week = 17.3 deg C
Insulation, glass and mass for a fullsize house

image: Montgomery Co. Public Schools, VA www.mcps.org
Walden made of 15 cm extruded polystyrene (no openings, no airflow):~1,000 W of heat needed at 0 oF. Henry David needs fresh air, which requires another 500 W to heat.
Walden with south-facing, double-pane glazing and water for thermal storage
Indoor and outdoor temperatures
40 30 20 temperature (oC) 10 0 1 -10 -20 -30 time (hour) 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163
Tout Tin,n
5 m2 glazing, 1000 kg water

Building America
USDOE-sponsored partnerships between consulting engineers and building industry, leading to prototypes and large-scale production ~33,000 houses constructed Goals Design and construct more energy efficient homes Reduce construction costs to provide more affordable housing Improve comfort Improve health and safety and indoor air quality Increase resource use efficiency Increase building durability Energy target: 35-45% reduction in heating, cooling and hot-water energy use
Glazing
Annual Cooling Energy Cost for a Typical House in Phoenix, AZ Window Type
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800
visible
Single clear Aluminum frame Single tint Aluminum frame Double clear Wood/Vinyl frame Double clear Low-solar-gain low-E Wood/Vinyl frame 6% Savings# 16% Savings# 32% Savings#
Full spectrum ~1/2 visible, 1/2 infrared
Annual Heating Energy Cost for a Typical House in Boston, MA Window Type
$0 $400 $800 $1200 $1600
Window
Visible transmittance 0.90 0.81 0.76 0.45 0.72
Single clear Aluminum frame Double clear Wood/Vinyl frame Double clear High-solar-gain low-E Wood/Vinyl frame Triple clear Mod.-solar-gain low-E Insulated frame frame. 27% Savings# 32% Savings# 39% Savings#
Single clear Double clear Double low e Double low e tint Double low e, Ar fill, spectrally selective
Solar heat gain coefficient 0.86 0.76 0.65 0.35 0.40
#Compared to the same 2000 sf house with clear, single glazing in an aluminum
Figure by MIT OCW. CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability
http://www.efficientwindows.org/BuilderToolkit.pdf
The builders perspective: pros and cons

Durability is key
Better moisture management Fewer warranty problems Happier customers and builders More referrals, sales Fewer dumpsters Reduced tipping fees
Less construction waste
New construction system to learn New concepts may require changes to local building codes
The systems approach

Feature Advanced framing Insulating sheathing Insulate basement Slab-edge insulation Unvented, conditioned attic Eliminate roof vents Eliminate housewrap High-performance windows Reduce infiltration Controlled ventilation system Locate ducts in conditioned space Simplify or downsize duct distribution Downsize air conditioner High-efficiency, direct-vent furnace Power-vented gas water heater Dehumidifier Set-back thermostat Total premium Annual homeowner savings Minneapolis -250 Grayslake, IL -250 0 +600 Atlanta +250 +400 +200 +750 -500 +250 +150 +1,000 +100 +125 0 -300 -750 +750 +150 +175 -150 225 +100 +1,525 480 -25 400 +100 390 +2,150 370 -750 -1,000 +400 -400 +250 +150 +300 +150 +750 Tucson Banning, CA
+750 +250
-250 -350
+400
+300
Refrigerators
1974, California law authorizes energy-efficiency standards (1,825 kWh) 2000 Annual energy consumption (kiloWatt-hours) 1977, first California standards take effect (1.546 kWh) 1600 Average before U.S. standards (1,074 kWh) 1200 1990 U.S. standard (976 kWh)
800
1993 U.S. standard (686 kWh)
400 2001 U.S. standard (476 kWh) 0 1960 1970 1980 Time (years) 1990 2000
Source: Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program

Figure by MIT OCW.
Lighting efficacies
Standard Incandescent Tungsten Halogen Halogen Infrared Reflecting
Mercury Vapor Compact Fluorescent (5-26 watts)
Compact Fluorescent (27-40 watts) Fluorescent (Full size and U-tube) Metal Halide Compact Metal Halide High Pressure Sodium White Sodium 0 20 40 60 80 100
Lumens/watt lamp plus ballast
Source: IESNA
Figure by MIT OCW.
Potential gain from solid-state lighting

200
Projected with accelerated effort
Efficiency (lm/W)
100
Fluorescent Semi-conductor Halogen Incandescent 1970 1980 1990 Year 2000 2010 2020 without accelerated effort
Source: Sandia National Lab

Figure by MIT OCW.
Residential clothes washers and central A/C

Washing machine energy
3.5 3.0
peak-load kW 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Residential A/C peak power
2.5 kWh/cycle 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Federal 2004 Energy Star 2004 Aailable 2006 Federal 2007 Energy Star 2007
1978 average
Federal 1992
Federal 2006
Energy Star 2006
Available 2006
GSHP 2006
Manufacturers identify Energy Star products. A/C and furnace/boiler producers list efficiencies but clothes washer manufacturers do not tout energy consumption for their equipment, which only costs ~$20/year in electricity
Lakeland, Florida, PV house

Annual energy use, kWh
Photograph of a photovoltaic house. Image removed for copyright reasons.

18400
2500 4700
net
PV
efficiency
Better choice of envelope construction would drop payback period from 23 to 9 years without PV and 40 to 28 years with PV.
Habitat for Humanity houses, Tennessee Oak Ridge National Lab
Five low-energy houses with very advanced technologies: wall panels, mechanical ventilation, waste-heat scavenging for hot water, PV Heating, cooling and hot water costs about $0.70/ day (!!) Other costs $1.00-1.38/day Christmas lights (!!) Research houses: not cost effective locally ($20K efficiency investment to save $400/year)
NRELs rational approach to efficiency and zero-net energy in houses
Source: Ren Anderson, NREL
Automated search for best combination of improvements
Tuning efficiency investments for a given location
PV is expensive, at least for now

Savings at minimum cost, % Present value of efficiency investment, minimum cost, $ 1,749 3,899 2,585 2,585 1,337 Present value of efficiency investment, NZE, $
Location
Savings at NZE, %
PV cost
Atlanta Chicago Houston Phoenix San Francisco
32 28 38 39 27
49 46 51 52 43
10,351 15,168 8,762 9,553 8,432
42,000 57,000 46,500 40,500 36,000
Figure by MIT OCW.
Solar Decathlon National Mall 2005
Canadian Solar Decathlon House
Heat recovery from PV boosts efficiency from ~8% to ~35%

3. Commercial buildings
Systems approach is lacking
No Building America equivalent Optimization tools are not as well developed Standards do not take systems approach Few buildings go beyond basic code compliance
Notable successes
Individual buildings, 1/3 -1/2 below average Expanding data base of high-performance buildings Private-sector labeling program (LEED) a help Guideline for small commercial buildings
Massachusetts State Transportation Building, Boston: a 20-year oldie but goodie
Aerial photograph of the State Transportation Building. Image removed for copyright reasons.
Atrium as thermal buffer, source of daylight and central plaza
Photographs of atrium. Images removed for copyright reasons.
Whats missing in this schematic?

AC-1 cooling coil AC-2 cooling coil AC-3 cooling coil AC-4 cooling coil CHWR Perimeter HWR Storage Tank 3 HE-3 Hot water pumps Zones CWS Condenser water pumps Chilled water pumps
CT-1
CT-2
Storage Tank 3
HE-2
RU-1
RU-2
RU-3
Storage Tank 1
HE-1 HWS CHWS
CWR
KEY HWS = Hot water supply HWR = Hot water return CWS = Condensed water supply CHWS = Chilled water supply CHWR = Chilled water return CWR = Condensed water return
Hint: not what you would expe ct in New England winters CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability
Figure by MIT OCW.
Potential for wasted energy: simultaneous (same instant, same day) heating and cooling
Mild weather: perimeter may need heat in early morning, cooling in afternoon (like houses)
Perimeter zone
Core
Year-round: core needs cooling constantly, even when perimeter must be heated
Energy consumption
173 kWh/m2 year (277 US average) End use energy:
Lights 41.6% (13.7 W/m2 peak) Variable mechanical 26.1% Steam 11.2% Appliances 5.4% Elevators 6.2% Computer rooms 5.4% Base mechanical 4.0%
Is this a low-energy building?

173 kWh/m2 yr transp bldg 653 state office bldg 717 state office bldg 270 comm office bldg 196 comm office bldg 186 comm office bldg The lower-energy buildings all recover heat from the building core
UK Office #1
Three-story office building 5,100 m2 (54,900 ft2) net floor area Sealed windows 100% mechanical conditioning 1+ year of monitoring and modeling
Photograph of office building. Image removed for copyright reasons.
Open atrium but closed conference rooms
Photographs of atrium. Images removed for copyright reasons.
Airflow Measurements
Very important!! Air must be heated or cooled, seasonally
40 L/s-person
Photograph of people taking airflow measurements. Image removed for copyright reasons.
About four times code requirements One-half expected occupancy Conference rooms controlled design Heat-recovery system broken
CO2 in conference rooms

1200 1000
CO2 Levels (ppm)
800
600
400 Outside CO2 Levels = 415 ppm
200
0 Sun Sun Mon Mon Tue Tue Wed Wed Thur Thur Fri Fri Sat Sat 12am 12pm 12am 12pm 12am 12pm 12am 12pm 12am 12pm 12am 12pm 12am 12pm
CO2 levels were typically well below the 1000 ppm limit
Figure by MIT OCW.
Savings due to heat recovery and lower airflow CO2 emissions, kg/m2 Energy consumption, kWh/m2
Natural gas Current 30.8 162 Electricity 71.7 156 71.7 156 45.0 98 Total 102.5 318 91.5 260 69.7 228
Current 19.8 airflow and 104 heat recovery Reduced 24.7 airflow and 130 heat recovery
Savings potential due to better operation of buildings

California: energy crisis
9% electrical demand reduction in 2001 relative to 2000, due to increased prices
Texas: continuous commissioning

20+% energy savings in 100+ large buildings, less than 3 year payback For 20 buildings
28% savings in chilled water 54% savings in hot water 2-20% savings in electricity (fans, pumps)
UK Office #2: nearby, naturally ventilated building
The following pages contained photographs of the office building, atrium views, interior views including windows and blinds, exposed structural mass, and open doors for airflow. Images removed for copyright reasons.
Temperature (C) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 7/23/03 12:00 AM 7/23/03 4:45 AM 7/23/03 9:30 AM 7/23/03 2:15 PM 7/23/03 7:00 PM 7/23/03 11:45 PM 7/24/03 4:30 AM 7/24/03 9:15 AM 7/24/03 2:00 PM 7/24/03 6:45 PM 7/24/03 11:30 PM 7/25/03 4:15 AM 7/25/03 9:00 AM 7/25/03 1:45 PM 7/25/03 6:30 PM 7/25/03 11:15 PM 7/26/03 4:00 AM 7/26/03 8:45 AM 7/26/03 1:30 PM 7/26/03 6:15 PM 7/26/03 11:00 PM 7/27/03 3:45 AM 7/27/03 8:30 AM 7/27/03 1:15 PM 7/27/03 6:00 PM 7/27/03 10:45 PM 7/28/03 3:30 AM 7/28/03 8:15 AM 7/28/03 1:00 PM 7/28/03 5:45 PM 7/28/03 10:30 PM 7/29/03 3:15 AM 7/29/03 8:00 AM 7/29/03 12:45 PM 7/29/03 5:30 PM 7/29/03 10:15 PM outside first floor average ground floor average second floor average 5
Interior Temperatures: July 2003

Luton July 2003
Temperature (C) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 8/1/2003 8/1/2003 8/2/2003 8/3/2003 8/4/2003 8/5/2003 8/6/2003 8/6/2003 8/7/2003 8/8/2003 8/9/2003 8/10/2003 8/11/2003 8/11/2003 8/12/2003 8/13/2003 8/14/2003 8/14/2003 8/15/2003 8/16/2003 8/17/2003 8/18/2003 8/19/2003 8/19/2003 8/20/2003 8/21/2003 8/22/2003 8/23/2003 8/24/2003 8/24/2003 8/25/2003 8/26/2003 8/27/2003 8/28/2003 8/29/2003 8/30/2003 8/30/2003 8/31/2003 outside First floor average Ground floor average Second floor average 5
Interior Temperatures: August 2003

Luton August 2003
Results from occupant survey views on temperature
100 Occupant Response (%) 80 60 40 20 0
Too Hot Hot
Warm
1) Warm inside building this summer but... 2) Not overly hot for most occupants
Slightly warm Neutral Temperature

Figure by MIT OCW.
Comparison of UK #1 and UK #1, kWh/m2 year

MV std MV GP Total NG Total elec L +OE Refrig Fans + cntls 178 226 85 31 60 97 128 50 14 30 NV std 151 85 65 0 8 NV GP Sunbury Luton UK #1 UK #2 A 79 54 42 0 4 162 156 55 29 50 140 76 51 0 5
Dealing with conference rooms: San Francisco Federal Building
Faade details coordinated

Trickle vent and heater at floor Manual operable window at desk height Motorized window above
2250 @ 14th Floor (width Varies) 870 3250 (conc. high pt.) 2800 (Top of cabin)
PERF SUNSCREEN
740
3050 (conc. low pt.)
1350
WINDOW WALL CONDITION TYP BOTH SIDES MAX ALLOW CLEAR OPENING TO BE 90MM TYP
2400
800
Figure by MIT OCW.
Testing the configuration: predicted degree-hours above base temperature
Base temperature (oF)
Wind only
Internal stack
Int & ext stack
Int stack + wind
Int & ext stack + wind
72
288
507
432
279
285
75
80
118
103
76
76
78
13
25
19
11
12
DOEs high performance buildings data base

4 Times Square 201 kWh/m2 simulated; daylight, fuel cells, a little PV EPA office, NC, 89 kWh/m2 simulated; shading, daylight, outside air when suitable
Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Fans/pumps 0% Lights 26% 26% Plug loads
20% Cooling 8% Heating
20% Other
Figure by MIT OCW.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annapolis 131 kWh/m2 measured consumption, 117 kWh/m2 purchased, 10% of consumed energy generated from solar thermal and PV on site; shading, daylight, natural ventilation, ground-source heat pumps
Zion National Park Visitor Center
Image courtesy of the National Park Service.

California Courthouse candidate for night cooling
Photograph of courthouse windows. Image removed for copyright reasons.
Annual Building-Total Electricity Costs

Ratchet On-Peak kW Mid-Peak kW On-Peak kWh Mid-Peak kWh Off-Peak kWh
200 Annual Electricity Cost (k$/year)
160 120 80
40 0
2 3
4 5
6 7 8
9 10
11 12 13 14 15
Figure by MIT OCW.
Case #
Energy Design Guide for Small (< 20,000 ft2) Commercial Buildings
30% savings relative to 1999 standard Strategies
Reduce loads Use properly sized, efficient equipment Refine systems integration
Climate-specific prescriptive recommendations:

roof, walls, floors, slabs, doors windows, skylights, lighting HVAC, ventilation, and hot water
4. Good enough?
Lifestyle vs. efficiency Market acceptance and technology gains for lights, appliances and HVAC Growing but still modest evidence of cost-driven efficiency gains Opportunity to contribute to carbon stabilization Integrated design needs to be pushed
Floor area counters efficiency gains

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Floor area/cap Single-family (median) US New Housing Floor Area: Single-Family (1950-2000) Single-family (mean)
1950
1960
1970
1980 Year
1990
2000
Figure by MIT OCW. CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability
Source: LBNL report
Major potential gains from market acceptance

CFL sales up 10x in Northwest, 2001 2004, but only 11% of market during energy crisis (source: J. DiPeso) High-efficiency appliances and HVAC are on the market now
Clothes washers 2x code efficiency Residential A/C 1.5x code efficiency
Near-maximum efficiency gains have been realized in some cases: fridges, furnaces
Atmospheric CO2 stabilization wedges Pacala and Socolow

Renewable electricity and fuels
14 GtC/y CO2 capture and storage 2004 Stabilization Triangle 7 GtC/y 2054 Energy efficiency and conservation
Forests and soils
Fuel switch
Nuclear Fission
Efficiency option: cut building and appliance emissions by 25% relative to business as usual
CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability Figure by MIT OCW.
To-do list
Promote market acceptance Information Carbon tax Emissions trading at micro-level Work to do Cheaper, more efficient technologies Lights PV, using waste heat Ventilation: demand-controlled, heat recovery, night cooling Ubiquitous integration tools for new construction and retrofits Individual buildings Communities (heat capture, local power generation) Component-level optimization is NOT enough!! Think at systems level.

MIT OCW CEE 1-964 - Design For Sustainability - Energy in Buildings

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MIT OCW CEE 1-964 - Design For Sustainability - Energy in Buildings

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Buildings and Energy

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Global energy consumption

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Does energy use correlate with quality of life?

Kilowatts per Capita

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Figure by MIT OCW.

Source: Goldemberg et al.

U.S. energy end-use

Electricity buildings 71%

U.S. residential and commercial building energy use intensities

1.5 residential primary residential site 1.0

Apparently not a lot of progress in 25 years

Energy use intensity, GJ/m2

commercial primary commercial site

1 GJ/m2 = 277 kWh/m2

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Residential buildings end-use energy 2003

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Commercial buildings end-use energy 2003

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

2. Residential buildings: savings potential in new construction

Savings relative to early 1990s benchmark

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Doing better with houses: lots of insulation!

Flickr photo courtesy of Smalloy.

Taking advantage of free heating for elfhouse

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Insulation, glass and mass for a fullsize house

5 m2 glazing, 1000 kg water

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Full spectrum ~1/2 visible, 1/2 infrared

Visible transmittance 0.90 0.81 0.76 0.45 0.72

Solar heat gain coefficient 0.86 0.76 0.65 0.35 0.40

Figure by MIT OCW. CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

The builders perspective: pros and cons

Less construction waste

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

The systems approach

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

1993 U.S. standard (686 kWh)

Source: Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program

Figure by MIT OCW.

Lumens/watt lamp plus ballast

Figure by MIT OCW.

Potential gain from solid-state lighting

Projected with accelerated effort

Source: Sandia National Lab

Figure by MIT OCW.

Residential clothes washers and central A/C

Residential A/C peak power

Energy Star 2006

Lakeland, Florida, PV house

Photograph of a photovoltaic house. Image removed for copyright reasons.

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Habitat for Humanity houses, Tennessee Oak Ridge National Lab

NRELs rational approach to efficiency and zero-net energy in houses

Source: Ren Anderson, NREL

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability

Automated search for best combination of improvements

CEE 1.964 Design for Sustainability