Optimized Energy Systems for Community Developments
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
1 gostou•409 visualizações
Rob Best, PhD Candidate in Civil & Environmental Engineering at Stanford University Sustainable Urban Systems Symposium Stanford University, June 2016
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a Optimized Energy Systems for Community Developments
Semelhante a Optimized Energy Systems for Community Developments (20)
Mais de Stanford Sustainable Urban Systems Initiative
Mais de Stanford Sustainable Urban Systems Initiative (20)
Último
Último (20)
Optimized Energy Systems for Community Developments
- 2. Optimized Building +Optimized Infrastructure +Optimized Policy ≠ OptimizedSystem June1,2016©RobertBest 2
- 3. June1,2016©RobertBest 3Jaccard, et al. (1997); Nordhaus (1973); Engel-Yan, et al. (2005) IncreasingImpactonEnergy Community Planning and SUS HVAC, Motors, Vehicles, Appliances Transit Mode, Industrial Processes, Building and Site Design Density, Mix of Uses, Energy Infrastructure, Transportation Network Where we Focus Most
- 5. How do energy efficiency, life cycle cost, and carbon emissions of a community development change when energy infrastructure and urban planning are balanced simultaneously early in the development process? June1,2016©RobertBest 5 Multiple buildings and power sources Energy supply and demand Multiobjective Optimization Hourly
- 6. June1,2016©RobertBest 6Best, et al. (2015)
- 7. June1,2016©RobertBest 7Best, et al. (2015)
- 8. 8 Boundary of the Development June1,2016©RobertBest External Grid Power Station Residential Commercial Energy Flow
- 9. June1,2016©RobertBest 9 Create Mesh for Site Area to Describe All Feasible Building Locations PreprocessingKey: Find Minimum “Cost” Pipe/Wire Spanning Tree Calculate Change in Building Performance fromTemperature, Pressure in Line Calculate Efficiency, Cost, Social Parameters ChooseType of Building that Exists at Each Node Calculate “Cost” of Connections (Values on Arcs) Using Composite Capital and OperatingCost Genetic Algorithm MILP Postprocessing Report Best Solutions
- 10. June1,2016©RobertBest 10 Initialize • Choose individuals (decision variables) in starting population Evaluate • Analyze energy, cost, carbon performance of individuals Select • Keep top performing 50% of individuals Crossover • “Mate” top performers to create new population Mutate • Randomly alter some individuals to introduce new variations Stop • Repeat for designated number of steps
- 11. June1,2016©RobertBest 11Best, et al. (2015)
- 13. DecisionVariables:Case Studies June1,2016©RobertBest 13 BuildingTypes Large Office Primary School Medium Office Secondary School Small Office Hospital Warehouse Outpatient Health Care Stand-alone Retail Small Hotel Strip Mall Large Hotel Quick Service Restaurant High Rise Condo Full Service Restaurant MidriseApartment Supermarket Townhouse Mixed Use: Condo/Retail Single Family Residence Mixed Use: Office/Retail Engine Type Fuel Source Number Included GasTurbine Natural Gas 5 Microturbine Natural Gas 3 Reciprocating Engine Natural Gas 5 SteamTurbine Natural Gas 3 Fuel Cell Hydrogen 6 Stoker Boiler/Turbine Biomass 3 Fluidized Bed/Turbine Biomass 3 Gasifier/Turbine Biomass 4 ChillerType Energy Input Source COP Range Centrifugal Electricity 5.58-9.16 Absorption Heat 0.71-0.83
- 14. Fuel Efficiency for DowntownOakland June1,2016©RobertBest 14 Run Total Fuel Cycle Efficiency Hourly Standard Deviation Maximum Efficiency from Simulation 55.67% 6.39% Minimum Efficiency from Simulation 37.16% 6.04% Oakland City Baseline 45.43% 9.44% Oakland CBD Baseline 43.76% 8.77% Best, et al. (2014)
- 15. Hunter’s PointCase Study June1,2016©RobertBest 15 Highest efficiencies do not exactly match zero carbon scenarios Carbon and cost experience tradeoff (biomass cost) Low cost and high efficiency is possible but tradeoff exists Best, et al. (2015) 0 20000000 40000000 60000000 80000000 100000000 120000000 140000000 160000000 180000000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 LCC(USD) Efficiency Life Cycle Cost vs. Efficiency 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 CarbonEmissions (Tons/Yr) Efficiency Annual Carbon Emissions vs. Efficiency 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 0 50000000 100000000 150000000 200000000 CarbonEmissions (Tons/Yr) LCC (USD) Annual Carbon Emissions vs. Life Cycle Cost
- 16. June1,2016©RobertBest 16Best, et al. (2015) CHP type is strong determinant of efficiency, but high efficiency exists across fuel and engine types Absorption chillers have the highest efficiency due to use of excess heat
- 17. June1,2016©RobertBest 17For results with only greater than 60% efficiency. Any amount of residential can contribute to high efficiency Best, et al. (2015) Lower office and commercial correlate with higher efficiency Industrial GFA over 70% and educational GFA over 50% of the total were not found to produce high efficiency solutions
- 18. Beyond Energy… June1,2016©RobertBest 18Fleeter, Mena, Mori, Morrice, Sonta, Lepech, and Best (2015 White Paper)
- 19. Calculate Number of Buildings Calculate Treated Water Requirement Calculate Building Heat Requirement Calculate Available Heat for Treatment Allocate Heat Possible in Each Hour Calculate Water Treatment Efficiency Calculate CHP EfficiencyCalculate Building Electricity Requirement Calculate Maximum Useful Heat forTreatment June1,2016©RobertBest 19Images from NREL,Twitter
- 20. Community Social Sustainability Safety Access (Freedom) Community Built Environment Aesthetics Recreation/ Health Nuisances June1,2016©RobertBest 20 Emergency Response Light Pollution Open Space/Parks Greenery andViews Density and Use Walkability Community Centers
Notas do Editor
- Hierarchy of importance for urban factors that affect energy performance (right)1 Integration of supply and demand known to smooth uncertainty in energy planning2 Neighborhoods new focal point of infrastructure interaction; constraints and opportunities for design and engineering3