Transcript Launch of Sustainable Energy Ireland Awards 2007

Launch of Sustainable Energy Ireland
Awards 2007
Heritage Hotel, Portlaoise
7th February 2007
Musgrave Group Head Office Construction Project
Winner: Best Renewable Energy Project 2006
John Curran, Group Environmental Executive
Musgrave Group
• Founded in 1876,
• Private Company, Family and Employee Owned
• Active family involvement; Chairman and 3 Directors
• Distribution and Franchise Business based in Ireland
• Operating in Ireland, UK and Spain
• Turnover 2006, ca. €5.0 Billion
• Estimated 25% share of retail trade in Ireland
• > 2500 retail stores, >25 Distribution Centres and Wholesale premises
• 40,000 direct/indirect employees.
The Building
•
Musgrave House, floor-area 2000M2
•
Annual Electrical Consumption 200,000kWh
•
Group head-office departments including;
•
•
Finance
•
Information Technology
•
Commercial
•
Human Resources
•
Group Board Directors.
Headcount approximately 80 people.
The Challenges
Project aimed to:
• design and build an energy efficient office building
• achieve the lowest possible emissions of CO2 and other Greenhouse
gases,
• Employ both active and passive means.
• Demonstrate our commitment to sustainability as defined in our policies on:
– Environmental and Social Accountability
– Energy and Natural Resources Management
• Deliver economic and environmental benefits
3 Basic Design Principles
To minimise the building’s carbon footprint by:
1.
Reducing the energy requirement through better (passive) design in
the first instance
2.
Giving preference to renewable energy in addition to the above
requirements
3.
Improving efficiency and optimising energy use.
1. Reducing Energy Requirements
• Alignment of the building so as to make best use of available shelter from
the prevailing south-westerly winds
• Increased insulation thicknesses in exterior cladding
• High specification (low u-value) double glazing to reduce heat losses in
winter
• Shading to reduce solar gain in summer
• Internal layout of offices and the use of a central atrium so as to maximise
the use of ambient daylight in offices and public spaces.
2 Giving Preference to Renewables
• Opted for a 160kW Geothermal Heating Ventilation and Air-conditioning
(HVAC) System
– accesses renewable solar energy contained in ground water on site through 12
circulation coils contained in 150 metre-deep vertical boreholes.
• Chose a 6.5kW solar/thermal water heating system
– incorporates roof mounted panels to provide all of the building’s hot water
needs and which is connected to a storage system with a mains back-up
heater if required.
3. Efficiency and Optimisation
• Intelligent automatic lighting control system including;
– Occupancy sensors
– Ambient daylight level sensors
– Energy efficient fittings and lamps
• Controls to prevent unnecessary use of energy or simultaneous heating
and cooling
• A building energy management system to control energy use and
operational performance.
• Integration of the building into Musgrave Energy Monitoring and targeting
Programme
The Business Case
• The additional ‘greener’ features increased the building’s construction
budget (+6.0%), however, Musgrave Group Board approved the capital
allocation on the basis that the design would:
– Reduce energy demand and GHG emissions during the building’s life-cycle
– Lower the building’s operating costs
– Articulate Musgrave values and our position on the Sustainability
– Promote Sustainable energy by example
Benefits of design features
• controlling heat loss/gain characteristics, allowed us to reduce the capacity
of the geothermal system needed to achieve optimum comfort levels,
thereby reducing energy demand further
• the HVAC system uses fresh outside air, unlike many conventional recirculating air-conditioning systems
• Air entering the AHU is heated or cooled only as required taking ambient
conditions into account
• Additional ‘trimming’ of temperature can be carried out locally by ceiling
mounted cassette units
Consumption and Emissions
Energy Source
Typical
Planned
Oil
397.5
0.0
Electricity
397.5
Total
795.0
Reduction
Reduction %
Oil=0.264kg CO2/kWh
CO2 Emissions tonnes
1000 kWh
Actual
Typical
Planned
0.0
104.9
0.0
0.0
414.0
200.0
248.0
258.3
115.4
414.0
200.0
353.0
258.3
124.8
381.0
595.0
94.6
228.2
48%
75%
27%
65%
Electricity=0.624kg CO2/kWh
Actual
Performance
Electrical Demand Profile
Week Ending On:
Musgrave Group HO
06/08/2006
70
60
M on
50
Tues
Demand (kW)
Wed
40
Thurs
Fri
Sat
30
Sun
M IC
20
10
0
M onday
T uesday
Wednesday
T hur sday
Fr i day
Satur day
Sunday
Green Electricity 2007
Our recent Green Electricity Deal with Energia means
that the building’s emissions will effectively be Zero,
saving almost 125 tonnes of CO2 per annum and an
additional 13,500 tonnes in our other facilities.
Heating and Cooling System Efficiency
Comparisons
Assumptions:
• Heating demand 30 weeks and cooling demand 22 weeks of each year
• Design heating and cooling load 160kW for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week
• Geothermal efficiency 4 to 1, so 40kW input delivers 160kW output
• Conventional A/C efficiency 2.5 to 1, so 64 kW input delivers 160kW output
‘Conventional’ System Operating Costs
Oil Heating:
160kW X 12 hours X 5 days X 30 weeks X €0.055/kWh
= €15,840 p/a
(1litre of heating oil is = 10.85kWh and costs around €0.60/litre)
Conventional A/C:
64kW X 12 hours X 5 days X 22 weeks X €0.13/kWh
= €10,982 p/a
‘Conventional’ system total
=€26,822 p/a
Geothermal System Operating Costs
Heating:
40kW X 12 hours X 5 days X 30 weeks X 0.13/kWh
= €9,360 p/a
Cooling:
40kW X 12 hours X 5 days X 22 weeks X 0.13/kWh
= €6,864 p/a
Geothermal system total
= €16,224 p/a
Heating/Cooling savings are around
€10,598 p/a
Project summary
• Project agreed
Dec 2004
• ‘Green’ features proposed
Feb 2005
• Board approval for extra costs
Mar 2005
• Local Authority planning approval
April 2005
• Construction commenced
June 2005
• Construction completed/Building occupied
June 2006
• Project duration
18 months
• Total project cost approximately
€4.6M,
• Additional Energy systems
€280k
The End Result
Open Windows
Conclusion
Project demonstrated that:
• with proper planning and an enlightened approach, it is possible to develop
more sustainable buildings
&
• the resultant additional expenditure can be more than recovered over the
lifetime of the building.
So was it all worth the effort?
Most definitely!!!
Thank You