From Guest Blogger Lillian Connors: Retrofitting Your Business Premises for Increased Energy Efficiency
We spend almost one third of our adult lives at work, which is why workplace energy efficiency has a huge impact on our overall carbon footprint. Energy-efficient office solutions drastically cut company’s energy costs and provide great level of employee comfort, which is why many employers decide to invest significant funds in green construction.
Unfortunately, small- and medium-sized enterprises in most cases don’t have enough means to build their own headquarters, so they often need to run their business from older buildings. These companies often retrofit their old offices in order to increase their energy efficiency and make their everyday business greener.
Fabric improvements
Insulation is the most important term in green construction. Green buildings usually go far beyond government insulation requirements. In zones with colder climate, green construction companies build thick walls with R values that range from 25 to 60. Since windows are usually the weakest insulation spots, almost every office building retrofitting project needs to start from custom double-glazed window installation. Entrepreneurs can also refurbish their walls, attic and basement insulation, by using Styrofoam, Polyurethane foam, fiberglass and other modern insulation materials.
Design and service upgrades
Ready to Redecorate Your Home? Go Green!Green offices need to use as much daylight as possible, which is why entrepreneurs should change window layout, build skylights, or some other light-transmitting fenestration structures. Solar tubes can also be a good idea. If placed into the roof, they can bring natural light directly to the offices. When changing the window layout entrepreneurs also should try to increase natural ventilation and cooling, in order to save utility money.
Lighting and HVAC
Occupancy sensors and smart lighting controls are the basis of energy efficient lighting systems. They limit unnecessary use by detecting motion and turning off the light when the room is empty. These types of lighting systems are widely used in modern office construction.
HVAC system can have a huge impact on company’s utility bills, which is why it needs to be equipped with a programmable thermostat, which enables entrepreneurs to create energy efficient heating and cooling schedules. Some smart versions of these thermostats, also allow them to set their schedule through a smartphone device.
Renewable energy
Making the use of renewable energy in an old office building, can be very tricky. It requires entrepreneurs to invest a lot of money in restructuring roofs and placing costly solar panels. Roof energy system can be used as a part of HVAC. It can contain solar air heaters, which can heat the air under the roof and circulate it in the lower floors.
Resource efficiency
When doing these kinds of construction works, entrepreneurs need to use existing bricks and other scrap material from old buildings in a smart way. All scrap steel should be recycled, while bricks and wooden beams can be reused for new wall and attic construction works. Even demolition waste can be reused for upper layers of hardcore infill. If entrepreneurs really care about their office building’s environmental impact, they will also use as much recycled concrete, plasterboard and studwork as possible. Scrap that can’t be used for building refurbishing can be sold to recycling companies that deal with old construction material and debris.
Retrofitting an office building is a great starting point for lowering company’s utility costs, increasing employee comfort and making its business process greener. In the digital age, green marketing is becoming highly popular, and many companies use this concept for attracting new customers. Companies that try to achieve higher energy efficiency are more attractive to several big consumer groups (including LOHAS), which means that successful strategies for increasing company’s sustainability can also serve as a great PR.
I like skylights. In fact, when my house was in the design stage, I had a skylight included in the powder room since there were no outside walls. However, skylights are not very energy efficient. Even when double glazed and coated with a low emissivity coating, they admit considerable heat from the sun. Even windows are far less efficient than well insulated walls to the extent that artificial lighting is more energy efficient than natural lighting. But of course we all like natural lighting.
Obviously there are trade offs. As important as energy efficiency is, there are also other considerations.
There are a host of incentives to do this energy improvement work from Federal to State as well as the local electric supplier. Check out the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency® http://www.dsireusa.org/
Thanks for this, Bruce; it’s an excellent resource.
Am participating in a PACE Commercial energy Retro fit .
The office bldg is 4 floors built in the 1970s and is a energy Hog. Annual electric bill $240,000 a year. The total project is coming in around $720,000 .
Has a peak demand level of 350 KW at $14.00 per KW of demand at 80% demand ratchet .
HVAC being converted to a VRF – Variable Flow system with variable air speed control and EMC controls. reducing demand by 50
So 141 KW at $14 per ea + KW with 15 more tons of capacity added.
LED lights are reducing demand by 60 Kw so 80 % reduction
Out door HPS lighting demand being reduced from 20 kw to 5 kw with LED. 15 kw net reduction
68 kw of solar carport that increases parking revenues by $12 per month per space. And reduces kw demand at around 16 kw. We are using Sun Power Panels which are real performers and we may get another 4 5 energy production as they will run cooler as they are elevated to 14 feet above and the air blowing under and over cools them off better than roof top.
Total Kw reduction of 141 at $ 14 per kw = $1,974 per month plus a 55 % to 65 % reduction in kwhr ( energy) per month. at 8 Cents w fuel addded. So thousands $$$ more in savings.
The future cost avoidance grows as the Utility has targeted for a $20 per KW charge in the next 3 years. So current monthly 350 kw times $ 20 = $7,000 in kw costs if NO Action taken that is monthly. Annually it would be $84,000 cost in just demand costs.
The utility is paying us $ 220 per KW reduced as that is their capitalized cost avoidance. End use efficiency is much more cost effective than building production plants especially nukes !
141 kw times $220 = $31,020 in capacity reduction rebate from utility.
So yes Indeed the Energy Efficiency Market is Viable and excellent for every Stakeholder good ROI for clients and the utilities will not need big base load units like in the past.
We reduce environmental damages and reduce water usage as well. Tennants more comfortable as well.
The Pathway Forward.
Some excerpts from a 2008 talk I gave “Reducing Energy Use in Buildings as a tool for Carbon Footprint Reduction”
“Often energy improvements can be financed in such a way that the energy savings pay the loan payment so there is no increase in the budget to pay for the improvements. The tax and electric company incentives just sweeten the deal.
It is clear that though they are not as exciting as renewable energy, energy improvements to existing buildings have the capacity to make the greatest and quickest impact on our energy use and the environment while we work to establish the technologies of our new clean energy future.
Once your building is operating efficiently, then renewable energy is an attractive affordable option for further reduction of your energy use.”
The great thing about investing in energy efficiency improvements is that besides saving energy, the work stimulates the economy on three levels, Manufacturing, distribution and local installation.
It is clear that some energy efficiency improvements can be justified on an economic basis alone. One of the problems is that buildings, whether for business or residential use, are built to be rented out and the owners and builders have little interest in energy efficiency. Similarly, many houses are built as cheaply as possible by contractors who will not occupy them and have no interest in energy efficiency. To a significant extent, building codes can solve that problem. Because contractors have effective lobbies, it can be difficult to get building codes which adequately consider energy efficiency.
In Minneapolis in the middle to late 1960s, the most common air conditioner for apartment buildings was a through-the-wall unit made by Westinghouse. It was also the cheapest air conditioner made and the least efficient. More efficient units were about 50% more efficient. Of course the building owners did not pay the power bill; it was the tenants who paid the power bill. That illustrates the problem of constructing energy efficient buildings and the need for building codes designed to ensure energy efficiency.
Here in Albuquerque, NM, there were unsuccessful attempts to have the building code require 6 inch exterior stud walls for houses so that houses could be better insulated. The building industry fought that tooth and nail. However, I specified 6 inch exterior stud walls for my house even though 4 inch walls would have met code requirements.
Frank good on you for taking control building better walls.
The mythical free market is so Rigged and when a person investigates energy usage and runs into all the low first cost barriers and works thru all the other inefficiencies in our market system one sees that the rigged market is a barrier to a more Sustainable Future for all ..
Trade associations do more Barrier work than improving work is my observation and their power needs to be reined in. We need regulations and enforcement and standards are good for everyone.
Much progress has been made since the 1978 when I started out in this BTU Journey on the Road to Sustainability. In most parts of the US building codes have improved greatly. I am shocked and disappointed that Albq Nm which was taking positive steps in the 1990s seems to be still controlled by the short term profit seekers in the building industry. Sad statement but your Governor is no Visionary and all I hear are complaints from my friends up there. Seems like they are going back wards
Texas has always had more of a hands off policy and allowed the home builders to roam free much to the higher utility cost for homeowners.
But due to many market forces codes are starting to be raised and we now have the PACE program for commercial and once the real estate folks can see the great ROI and property value increases for improved properties the acceptance and support for better HVAC, Insulation Lighting, Controls , Windows and other technologies are gaining more support.
There is a new IECC Code for HVAC coming out that will improve both residential and commercial units . Engineers and contractors are going to have to accept it and not fight it its a done deal at the National level by ASHRAE and other engineering societies.
HER Home energy ratings will get below 50 soon for the typical tract home and the custom boutique Green builders are reaching 25 and 30. The lower the number the better the package and energy performance. The saved money can be a boost to our economy or people can save for retirement etc. .
Silent,
In general, I strongly agree with you post.
One of the arguments against changing building codes to require higher energy efficiency is that that would increase the cost of housing thereby making it impossible for some people to buy houses. That is understandable, but I think there is a solution. Most people use a mortgage to buy a house. An energy efficient house would have lower energy bills, i.e,. electricity and gas bills. If banks took that into consideration when determining whether a home buyer could afford to make the payments, then perhaps people could afford to spend more for a house that was energy efficient.
Then there is the resale problem. If houses had energy ratings so buyers could see what the cost of utilities would be, and if real estate agents made it easy for buyers to put the energy ratings into perspective, then perhaps buyers would be willing to pay more for energy efficient houses. In any case, I think that solutions could be found. You have covered that problem to some extent.
On the other hand, some regulations may go too far. For example, condensing boilers and forced air furnaces are more energy efficient than non-condensing ones, but it is questionable whether the increased efficiency is worth the increased investment cost and the increased complication which increases maintenance costs.
We’ve come a long way since the efficiency of the typical home heating system was below 70%. Now the efficiency is commonly greater than 90% which significantly lowers heating bills, especially when combined with better insulation. Perhaps the next step should be more effective zoning to make it practical to heat rooms only when they are occupied. The typical home has forced air heating which, in theory, can be zoned, but not without problems. That’s one reason, but not the only reason, I have radiant floor heating.
This is a somewhat complicated subject. It is important to make changes in building codes and regulations carefully and consider all the consequences.
I was amazed when I started to research talks on green building that the 2% of the cost of an average house is insulation, so doubling the insulation levels (and halving the heat loss) only adds 2% to the cost of the building. In commercial buildings insulation is 2-5% of cost. If you also make the shell as air tight as possible when you double the insulation you will effectively reduce the heating and cooling load by 90% or more.
In a commercial building the reduced size and cost of the HVAC equipment needed pays for the extra insulation.
A no brainer!