Study shows 30% above ASHRAE energy efficiency difficult to reach in buildings, 50% unreachable
Results show efficiencies unable to reach 30% mandates
-- Building Design & Construction, 2/24/2009 12:16:00 PM
NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, today released a report that demonstrates the levels of energy efficiency that standard office buildings can reach while remaining economically feasible.
The study was initiated to determine if commercial development could achieve reduction targets of 30-50 percent above the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standard – the benchmark often cited in legislation and other calls for mandatory reductions.
Using a recently completed four-story, 95,000 square-foot, Class A office building as the prototype, the research modeled the prototype in three climate zones represented by Chicago, Ill.; Baltimore, Md.; and Newport Beach, Calif.
Findings show that although significant energy efficiencies can be achieved (varying by climate zone), reaching a 30 percent reduction above the ASHRAE standard is not feasible using common design approaches and would exceed a 10-year payback. The study concluded that achieving a 50 percent reduction above the standard is not currently reachable.
“The study provides an unbiased insight into the energy targets practical to commercial development today,” said Thomas J. Bisacquino, NAIOP president. “Identifying an energy reduction level that is both environmentally responsible and equitable to the developer is essential in protecting the prosperity of commercial real estate.”
About the Study
The study was conducted by ConSol, a California-based independent energy-modeling firm, using the Department of Energy’s EnergyPlus v2.2, a building energy simulation program for modeling building energy uses.
Modeling included enhanced wall and roof insulations; varying levels of exterior glazing; higher-efficiency window assemblies; reduced air infiltration via the installation of an air barrier; reduced lighting power densities; higher-efficiency HVAC equipment; and photovoltaic electricity energy generation.
Using technologies and methods to increase effectiveness, the maximum efficiency reached was 23 percent in the Chicago model. Results across the climate zones vary by more than seven percent, given baseline energy uses in domestic water heating; lighting; heat generation; air conditioning; and fans, dampers and HVAC equipment .
Overall, energy savings, cost increases and payback periods are:
Chicago: 23 percent in energy savings; $188,523.45 cost increase; 8.8 year payback;
Baltimore: 21.5 percent in energy savings; $165,148.13 cost increase; 11 year payback;
Newport Beach: 15.8 percent in energy savings; $169.898.13 cost increase; 12.2 year payback.
“With the results of achieving higher efficiency targets differing so greatly across the climate zones, the study reveals that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to mandatory energy reductions does not work in legislation or other mandates,” said Bisacquino. “It is important that policymakers and others realize the economic consequences that imposing mandated targets will have on the development industry.”
Study results show that employing solar generation technologies could close the gap between the efficiencies achieved in the study and the 30 percent above the ASHRAE 90.1 -2004 standard. However, at an installed cost of more than $1 million and a payback of up to 100 years, it far exceeds practical and economical limits.
Additionally, elements of a holistic, integrated design approach that could yield higher energy efficiencies were identified as impractical in the study’s building prototype, which represents more than 50 percent of total new Class A commercial construction. For example, in the Newport Beach model, a geothermal system (a component of a holistic approach) required more than two additional acres of space – an impossibility for the project site.
“We recognize that some buildings are able to achieve higher energy efficiencies by employing various holistic design approaches,” said Bisacquino. “These approaches could become more economically feasible with new technologies and federal, state and local incentives.”
NAIOP commissioned the study as a proactive approach to engage the commercial development industry in advancing an economically prosperous and sustainable built environment. “We are encouraged that study results show that increased energy efficiency and building profitability are not opposing concepts,” said Bisacquino.
NAIOP has an ongoing commitment to providing its members with tools, resources and education to aid in the employment of best practices for energy efficient development. In June 2008, NAIOP introduced an Energy Policy (www.naiop.org/resourcecenter/greenresource/energypolicy.cfm) that encourages the development industry to employ every technically feasible, cost-effective, sustainable strategy available to increase energy efficiency of new and existing buildings, and advances public policies that accelerate ongoing energy efficiency and sustainability gains.
About NAIOP
NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, is the leading organization for developers, owners and related professionals in office, industrial and mixed-use real estate. NAIOP comprises 18,000 members in North America. NAIOP advances responsible commercial real estate development and advocates for effective public policy. For more information, visit www.naiop.org.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Kathryn Hamilton
(703) 904-7100, ext. 165
hamilton@naiop.org
-
At the surface, it appears that NAIOP is trying to be progressive by developing the tools its members need to navigate the new green economy. Upon reading, however, it''s clear that they''re simply towing the same old party line: green costs insane amounts of money and requires things like solar panels. I think NAIOP has really missed a huge opportunity with this study by playing to their out-dated constituents'' misconceptions instead of addressing the many myths about green buildings.
Scott Armstrong - 2009-2-3 07:02:00 MST -
Building is not spelled correctly in the article title
Joe - 2009-27-2 08:05:00 MST -
Building is not spelled correctly in the title.
Anoymous - 2009-27-2 08:04:00 MST -
Absolutely ridiculous study and article. Does no one employ any critical thinking anymore? Try using an integrated design approach... the evidence for comparable buildings that save more energy in harsher climates than those used already exists worldwide. And they don''t cost a premium, which is always the first counter-argument. It''s high time building professionals in all facets of the industry get familiar with bio-climatic, integrated design, and thinking differently from the initial clean-sheet stage. When energy efficiency and optimization is paramount, start thinking differently right out of the box. The one thing this "study" has done is clearly make the point that applying a typical blanket approach and typical efficiency measures to different environments will encounter limiting returns. It''s common sense and outmoded thinking.
Art Vandalay - 2009-25-2 12:04:00 MST
VIEW ALL GALLERIES