Session 1 - Montefiore

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Net Zero Site Energy: A site ZEB produces at least as much energy as it uses in a year, when accounted for at the site. • Net Zero Source Energy: A source ZEB produces at least as much energy as it uses in a year, when accounted for at the source. Source energy refers to the primary energy used to generate and deliver the energy to the site. To calculate a building’s total source energy, imported and exported energy is multiplied by the appropriate site-to-source conversion multipliers. • Net Zero Energy Costs: In a cost ZEB, the amount of money the utility pays the building owner for the energy the building exports to the grid is at least equal to the amount the owner pays the utility for the energy services and energy used over the year. • Net Zero Energy Emissions: A net-zero emissions building produces at least as much emissions-free renewable energy as it uses from emissions-producing energy sources. Low- and Zero-Energy Buildings: Examples To study the impacts of these ZEB definitions, we examined seven low-energy commercial buildings that had been monitored extensively with respect to the definitions. Each was designed to minimize energy and environmental impacts and used a combination of lowenergy and renewable energy technologies. The buildings represent several climates and uses. They are all good energy performers; site energy savings range from 25% to 68% compared to conventional buildings that are minimally energy-code compliant (ASHRAE 2001). Understanding the energy performance of the current stock of high-performance buildings is an important step toward reaching the ZEB goal. The lessons learned from these seven buildings are used to guide future research to meet DOE’s goal for facilitating marketable ZEBs by 2025. The buildings studied are (Torcellini et al. 2004; Barley et al. 2005): • “Oberlin”—The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, Oberlin College. • “Zion”—The Visitor Center at Zion National Park, Springdale, Utah. • “Cambria”—The Cambria Department of Environmental Protection Office Building, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania. • “CBF”—The Philip Merrill Environmental Center, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annapolis, Maryland. • “TTF”—The Thermal Test Facility, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. • “BigHorn”—The BigHorn Home Improvement Center, Silverthorne, Colorado. • “Science House” Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. These buildings were further investigated to determine additional PV system array area and capacity requirements to meet the ZEB goals (see Table 2). Annual electricity and natural gas site-to-source conversion multipliers (3.2 for electricity and 1.07 for natural gas) were applied to each building to determine source energy use (EIA 2005). For the all-electric buildings (Oberlin, Zion, Cambria, and the Science House), the site ZEB and source ZEB are the same. CBF used a minimal amount of propane, and the TTF and BigHorn used natural gas for space and water heating. Zion, TTF, BigHorn, and the Science House are single-story buildings; Oberlin, Cambria, and CBF are two stories. We used the PV system simulation tool PVSyst v3.3 5
(Mermoud 1996) to calculate the expected annual performance of the PV system. Singlecrystalline PV modules were modeled with 0.0° tilt, as we assumed the PV system would be mounted on a flat roof of each building. These modules provide the best available output per unit area of commercially available PV modules. The Science House is the only building in this list that is currently a site, source, and emissions ZEB; it is a net exporter with approximately 30% more generation than consumption. Building and PV System (DC Rating Size) Site Energy Use (w/o PV) (MWh/yr) Table 2. ZEB Example Summary Source Energy Use (w/o PV) (MWh/yr) Actual Roof Area (footprint) (ft 2 ) Flat Roof Area (ft 2 ) Needed for Source ZEB and Site ZEB with PV PV System DC Size Needed for Source ZEB and Site ZEB Oberlin-60 kW 118.8 380.2 8,500 10,800 120 kW Zion-7.2 kW 91.6 293.1 11,726 6,100 73 kW Cambria-17.2 kW 372.1 1,190.7 17,250 37,210 415 kW CBF-4.2 kW 365.2 1,142.0 15,500 TTF-No PV 83.5 192.5 10,000 BigHorn-8.9 kW 490.4 901.0 38,923 25,316 Source ZEB 25,640 Site ZEB 4,010 Source ZEB 5,550 Site ZEB 18,449 Source ZEB 31,742 Site ZEB 282 kW Source ZEB 286 kW Site ZEB 45 kW Source ZEB 62 kW Site ZEB 206 KW Source ZEB 354 kW Site ZEB Science House-8.7 kW 5.9 18.8 1,370 1,000 6 kW Zero-Energy Buildings: How Definition Influences Design Depending on the ZEB definition, the results can vary substantially. Each definition has advantages and disadvantages, which are discussed below. Net Zero Site Energy Building A site ZEB produces as much energy as it uses, when accounted for at the site. Generation examples include roof-mounted PV or solar hot water collectors (Table 1, Option 1). Other site-specific on-site generation options such as small-scale wind power, parking lotmounted PV systems, and low-impact hydro (Table 1, Option 2), may be available. As discussed earlier, having the on-site generation within the building footprint is preferable. A limitation of a site ZEB definition is that the values of various fuels at the source are not considered. For example, one energy unit of electricity used at the site is equivalent to one energy unit of natural gas at the site, but electricity is more than three times as valuable at the source. For all-electric buildings, a site ZEB is equivalent to a source ZEB. For buildings with significant gas use, a site ZEB will need to generate much more on-site electricity than a source ZEB. As an example, the TTF would require a 62-kWDC PV system to be a site ZEB, but only a 45-kWDC PV system for a source ZEB (Table 2); this is because gas heating is a major end use. The net site definition encourages aggressive energy efficiency designs because on-site generated electricity has to offset gas use on a 1 to 1 basis. A site ZEB can be easily verified through on-site measurements, whereas source energy or emissions ZEBs cannot be measured directly because site-to-source factors need to be determined. An easily measurable definition is important to accurately determine the progress toward meeting a ZEB goal. 6
Page 1 and 2:
Session 1 - Supervisors : Pierre De
Page 3 and 4:
Session 3 - Supervisors : Damien Er
Page 5 and 6:
Session 5 - Supervisors : Nathalie
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Session 11 - Supervisors : Damien E
Page 13 and 14:
Session 13 - Supervisors : Nathalie
Page 15 and 16:
Session 15 - Supervisors : Sigrid R
Page 17 and 18:
Appendix A : Sigrid Reiter Appendix
Page 20 and 21:
EEA Report No 10/2006 Urban sprawl
Page 22 and 23:
Contents Contents Acknowledgements
Page 24 and 25:
Urban sprawl — a European challen
Page 26 and 27:
from city centres, while retaining
Page 28 and 29:
growth as mentioned in Chapter 1. R
Page 30 and 31:
The extent of urban sprawl in Europ
Page 32 and 33:
esidential density, sprawl is equal
Page 34 and 35:
The extent of urban sprawl in Europ
Page 36 and 37:
3 The drivers of urban sprawl 3.1 C
Page 38 and 39:
The drivers of urban sprawl Figure
Page 40 and 41:
also clearly demonstrate city spraw
Page 42 and 43:
Box 4 Portugal and Spain: threats t
Page 44 and 45:
Box 5 (cont.) Map Development scena
Page 46 and 47:
Box 6 (cont.) The drivers of urban
Page 48 and 49:
emote locations and requiring trans
Page 50 and 51:
4.1.2 Natural and protected areas T
Page 52 and 53:
Box 7 (cont.) The impacts of urban
Page 54 and 55:
the societal cost of asthma has bee
Page 56 and 57:
Box 8 Effects of residential areas
Page 58 and 59:
5.2 The European spatial developmen
Page 60 and 61:
European regional forces generating
Page 62 and 63:
Box 9 (cont.) Responses to urban sp
Page 64 and 65:
urban development plan and focused
Page 66 and 67:
Box 10 (cont.) Responses to urban s
Page 68 and 69:
Annex: Data and methodological appr
Page 70 and 71:
C Assessing urban sprawl at the Eur
Page 72 and 73:
References and further reading Ambi
Page 74 and 75:
European Commission, 1990. Green Pa
Page 76 and 77:
European Environment Agency Urban s
Page 78 and 79:
Appendix A.2 78
Page 80 and 81:
Section 2 presents a brief review o
Page 82 and 83:
intervention in these specific type
Page 84 and 85:
electricity as trains in Belgium ar
Page 86 and 87:
The majority of those districts are
Page 88 and 89:
which were calculated with the same
Page 90 and 91:
The last type of sensitivity analys
Page 92 and 93:
(INSEE) in France, the Office for N
Page 94 and 95:
Kints C. La rénovation énergétiq
Page 96 and 97:
A Method to Evaluate the Energy Con
Page 98 and 99:
application in many other suburban
Page 100 and 101:
Our classification of buildings cur
Page 102 and 103:
to work and the mode of transportat
Page 104 and 105:
energy consumption of a neighborhoo
Page 106 and 107:
transportation represents 11.8% to
Page 108 and 109:
most important. Insulating only the
Page 110 and 111:
savings highlighted in the first an
Page 112 and 113:
measurements because of high variat
Page 114 and 115:
Hilderson, W., E. Mlecnik and J. Cr
Page 116 and 117:
FIGURE CAPTIONS AND TABLE TITLES Fi
Page 118 and 119:
PLEA2012 - 28th Conference, Opportu
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND SOLAR AVAIL
Page 128 and 129:
year are 34.9 °C and -9,1°C. The
Page 130 and 131: The new built density of the neighb
Page 132 and 133: Appendix A.6 132
Page 134 and 135: uilding” approach. A large amount
Page 136 and 137: C. Comparison of our classification
Page 138: In fact, as cavity walls became wid
Page 141 and 142: METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE Keywor
Page 143 and 144: approaches. These methodologies hav
Page 145 and 146: travel through the urban area of Li
Page 147 and 148: METHODS, TOOLS, AND SOFTWARE Figure
Page 149 and 150: as well as the ability to test fore
Page 153 and 154: consumption is rarely taken into ac
Page 155 and 156: interdependences between urban stru
Page 157 and 158: These data were also used by Boussa
Page 159 and 160: and energy consumption in the resid
Page 161 and 162: Mean modal share (train) 14,0% 12,7
Page 163 and 164: Figure 4: Annual transport energy c
Page 165 and 166: 23,0%, even if the annual energy co
Page 167 and 168: or commercial purposes. “Type-pro
Page 169 and 170: Beevers SD and Carslaw DC (2005) Th
Page 171 and 172: Lavadinho S and Lensel B (2010) Imp
Page 175 and 176: NOTICE The submitted manuscript has
Page 177 and 178: Using ZEB design goals takes us out
Page 179: Boulder, Colorado has a solar acces
Page 183 and 184: energy is used. TDVs have been deve
Page 185 and 186: Net Zero Energy Emissions Building
Page 187 and 188: combined with selecting a favorable
Page 191 and 192: Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings
Page 207 and 208: PRe, SimaPro., 2000. Life Cycle Ass
Page 211 and 212: 396 buildings [17,26]. This review
Page 213 and 214: 398 2.2. Embodied energy and carbon
Page 215 and 216: 400 using photovoltaic panels will
Page 219 and 220: assumptions, the indicators (Embodi
Page 221 and 222: Table 3 Distribution of the steel w
Page 223 and 224: the three case studies exhibit a st
Page 225 and 226: PLEA 2011 - 27 th Conference on Pas
Page 231 and 232:
Appendix B : Pierre Dewallef Append
Page 233 and 234:
When writing your presentation, you
Page 235 and 236:
Status of Solar Tower Power Plant t
Page 237 and 238:
Appendix B.3 237
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Status of biomass combustion power
Page 243 and 244:
Appendix B.5 243
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Status of ocean thermal energy conv
Page 249 and 250:
Appendix B.7 249
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Status of Natural Gas Combined Cycl
Page 255 and 256:
Appendix B.9 255
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Status of Integrated coal Gazeifica
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix B.11 261
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Status of Carbon Capture and Storag
Page 267 and 268:
Appendix B.13 267
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Status of Carbon Capture and Storag
show all

Session 1 - Montefiore

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?