Appendices - GSA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table C-2: Size of RE Technology that Minimizes Life-Cycle Cost by State (with incentives) LPOE Site Name PV Size (kW) Wind Capacity (kW) Solar Vent Preheat Area (ft 2 ) Solar Water Heating Area (ft 2 ) Biomass Gasifier Size (M Btu/h) Biomass Gasifier Cogen Size (kW) Daylighting non-Office Skylight/ Floor Area Ratio Daylighting Office Skylight/ Floor Area Ratio Richford, VT 0 0 349 194 0 0 4.5% 4.0% Alburg, VT (Joint ownership) 0 0 270 33 0 0 4.2% 4.5% Highgate Springs 1, VT 0 0 78 2 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Highgate Springs 2, VT 0 0 1,941 3,591 0.22 24 4.4% 2.8% Highgate Springs 3, VT 0 0 174 118 0 0 4.4% 4.0% Blaine, WA 0 0 3,317 1,003 0 0 4.9% 4.2% Danville, WA 0 0 810 155 0 0 4.7% 4.1% Laurier, WA 0 0 405 55 0 0 4.6% 4.2% Mataline Falls. WA 0 0 366 62 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Oroville, WA 0 0 0 222 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Sumas, WA 0 0 1,098 294 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Blaine, WA 0 0 3,314 608 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Blaine, WA 0 0 2,549 0 0 0 5.7% 4.4% Kenneth Ward, WA 0 0 1,653 0 0 0 5.1% 4.8% *Solar thermal and solar thermal electric were not cost effective at any LPOE sites with incentives. Note that each technology is recommended as part of the optimized solution for a site, and these sizes minimize life-cycle costs. In other words, it is possible for an LPOE site to cost effectively generate more RE than the optimized solution indicates, but the life cycle costs would be higher. 166
Table C-3: Size of RE Solutions (with and without incentives) Without Tax Incentives With Tax Incentives Skylight Area (sf) 190,951 209,666 Wind Energy (kW) 2,491 3,689 Solar Ventilation Air Preheat (sf) 93,265 119,652 Solar Water Heating (sf) 28,464 90,703 Biomass Gasification Boiler (MBH) 1.3 1.8 Biomass Gasification Cogen (kW) 134 193 PV (kW) 0 737 Biomass Anaerobic Digester (ft 3 ), Biomass Anaerobic Digester Cogen (kW), Solar Thermal Electric, and Solar Thermal Parabolic Trough technologies were not found to be cost-effective at any LPOE sites even with incentives. PV was cost effective at 3 sites when incentives were considered: • San Ysidro, CA (467 kW), • Otay Mesa, CA (217 kW), and • Tecate, CA (52 kW). The resultant table is not included here as the preponderance of entries show PV as not cost effective given the evaluation criteria. Note that each technology is recommended as part of the optimized solution for a site, and these sizes minimize life-cycle costs. In other words, it is possible for an LPOE site to cost effectively generate more RE than the optimized solution indicates, but the life cycle costs would be higher. 167
Page 1 and 2:
Appendix A. Detailed Methodology A.
Page 3 and 4:
Initial cost, efficiency, and opera
Page 5 and 6:
Table A-1: Characteristics of Dayli
Page 7 and 8:
Table A-2: Illuminance Information
Page 9 and 10:
Table A-2: Illuminance Information
Page 12 and 13:
Table A-3: Characteristics of Wind
Page 14 and 15:
Table A-4: Land Required and Land A
Page 16 and 17:
Table A-4: Land Required and Land A
Page 18 and 19:
Biomass Energy Biomass energy is fu
Page 20 and 21:
Orchard and Grape (Dry Tonnes/Year)
Page 22 and 23:
A.2.3.2 Technology Characteristics
Page 24 and 25:
three systems and costs are, theref
Page 26 and 27:
These systems offer lower electrica
Page 28 and 29:
not accounted for in this analysis
Page 30 and 31:
Table A-7: Additional Information f
Page 32 and 33:
Table A-7: Additional Information f
Page 34 and 35:
Solar Resources The solar resource
Page 36 and 37:
of the wall admits fresh air withou
Page 38 and 39:
The size of a solar ventilation air
Page 40 and 41:
Figure A-13: Typical solar water he
Page 42 and 43:
Suggested size for the solar water
Page 44 and 45:
other with an embedded conductor wi
Page 46 and 47:
System efficiency is taken to be 77
Page 48 and 49:
Since the system has moving parts,
Page 50 and 51:
Table A-13: Location and Size of th
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Table A-14: Base Case Electricity C
Page 58 and 59:
Table A-14: Base Case Electricity C
Page 60 and 61:
Table A-15: Base Case Oil Consumpti
Page 62 and 63:
Table A-16: Base Case Natural Gas C
Page 64 and 65:
Geographical Information System (GI
Page 66 and 67:
Table A-17: RE Resource Information
Page 68 and 69:
Table A-17: RE Resource Information
Page 70 and 71:
Table A-18: City Cost Adjustments f
Page 72 and 73:
Table A-18: City Cost Adjustments f
Page 74 and 75:
Figure A-20: Illustration of the so
Page 76 and 77:
Kenneth Ward, WA Blaine, WA Blaine,
Page 78 and 79:
Table B-2: RE Use as Percentage of
Page 80 and 81:
Table B-2: RE Use as Percentage of
Page 82 and 83:
Table B-4: CO 2 Avoided with RE Sol
Page 84 and 85:
Table B-4: CO 2 Avoided by Site (wi
Page 86 and 87:
B.3 Initial Cost Initial cost of $0
Page 88 and 89: Table B-6: Initial Costs for RE Tec
Page 90 and 91: Table B-6: Initial Costs for RE Tec
Page 92 and 93: Table B-8: Fuel Escalation Rates Us
Page 94 and 95: Table B-10: Life-Cycle Costs for RE
Page 96 and 97: Table B-10: Life-Cycle Costs for RE
Page 98 and 99: Table B-11: RE Solutions that Minim
Page 100 and 101: Table B-11: RE Solutions that Minim
Page 102 and 103: Table B-12: Daylighting Calculation
Page 104 and 105: Table B-12: Daylighting Calculation
Page 106 and 107: Table B-13: Wind Energy Calculation
Page 108 and 109: Table B-13: Wind Energy Calculation
Page 110 and 111: Table B-14: Calculations for Biomas
Page 116 and 117: Table B-16: Details of Solar Ventil
Page 118 and 119: Table B-16: Details of Solar Ventil
Page 120 and 121: Table B-17: Details of Solar Water
Page 122 and 123: Table B-17: Details of Solar Water
Page 124 and 125: LPOE Site Name Table B-18: Return o
Page 126 and 127: The following LPOE Sites did not ha
Page 128 and 129: Appendix C. Results of Life-Cycle C
Page 130 and 131: type of arrangement the customer pa
Page 132 and 133: Table C-1: Initial Cost of RE Techn
Page 134 and 135: Table C-1: Initial Cost of RE Techn
Page 136 and 137: Table C-2: Size of RE Technology th
Page 140 and 141: Table C-4: Return on Investment for
Page 142 and 143: Table C-4: Return on Investment for
Page 144: [13] Emissions from Integrated MSW
show all

Appendices - GSA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?