17. What Level of Savings Can Screening Surveys Help Uncover? EEM Area Possible Energy Savings Lighting Up to 25 – 50% of lighting energy use Window treatment Up to 10% of cooling energy use Motors Up to 10 – 20% of motor energy use Package units Up to 33 – 50% of package unit energy use Chiller systems Up to 25 – 40% of chiller system energy use Air handling Up to 25 – 50% of air handling energy use Enclosed Parking Ventilation Up to 25 – 50% of parking ventilation system energy use
18. Good Candidates for EE Measures 100% of 30 year-old buildings that have not undergone EE retrofits 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 Age of building (in years) Percentage of buildings in which common EEMs would be cost effective 35 (PLUS SOME BIG EXCEPTIONS) 30% of 10 year-old buildings that have not undergone EE retrofits 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
37. LED Bi-Level Bollard Based on popular existing model … Robust design … Light distribution/intensity control … High system efficacy Wattages: Old--42W CFL, 70W MH, 100W MH New: 40W occupied 15W standby Available now Payback ~1 yr new constr., ~4-6 yrs retrofit
Revenue generated from increased productivity from improved energy performance and increased employee comfort can be up to 10 times as high as the energy cost savings received from performing upgrades. Every dollar invested in an energy-efficient upgrade can produce between $2 and $3 in increased asset value (increases can make commercial properties more attractive to buyers and lenders). [Source: EPA “ENERGY STAR Buildings Partnership” documentation]
Revenue generated from increased productivity from improved energy performance and increased employee comfort can be up to 10 times as high as the energy cost savings received from performing upgrades. Every dollar invested in an energy-efficient upgrade can produce between $2 and $3 in increased asset value (increases can make commercial properties more attractive to buyers and lenders). [Source: EPA “ENERGY STAR Buildings Partnership” documentation]
Revenue generated from increased productivity from improved energy performance and increased employee comfort can be up to 10 times as high as the energy cost savings received from performing upgrades. Every dollar invested in an energy-efficient upgrade can produce between $2 and $3 in increased asset value (increases can make commercial properties more attractive to buyers and lenders). [Source: EPA “ENERGY STAR Buildings Partnership” documentation]
Revenue generated from increased productivity from improved energy performance and increased employee comfort can be up to 10 times as high as the energy cost savings received from performing upgrades. Every dollar invested in an energy-efficient upgrade can produce between $2 and $3 in increased asset value (increases can make commercial properties more attractive to buyers and lenders). [Source: EPA “ENERGY STAR Buildings Partnership” documentation]
The EPA analysis indicates that investments in energy efficiency upgrades can be less risky and yield higher returns than the S&P (Standard & Poor's) 500 Composite — and that analysis was done before the recent turmoil in the stock market. [Source: ENERGY STAR Upgrade Manual for Buildings, EPA, 2004] Energy efficiency: Permits potential savings up to 35% or more from an integrated approach to energy-efficiency Enables a more competitive stature by lowering the cost of products and services and increasing productivity Prevents pollution [Source: “ENERGY STAR Buildings Partnership” documentation] Buildings in the top 25% of energy efficiency (ENERGY STAR buildings): Cost $0.54 less per square foot to operate when compared to an average building Cost $2.10 less per square foot to operate when compared to a below-average building [Source: EPA “Did You Know” documentation http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/challenge/learn_more/DidYouKnow.pdf] The EPA estimates that if the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings improved by just 10 percent, Americans would save about $20 billion annually and reduce greenhouse gas emissions equal to the emissions from almost 30 million vehicles. [Source: 2007 ENERGY STAR manual, Introduction chapter] Research shows that upgrades involving a comprehensive range of technologies — including lighting, HVAC, etc. — can save facilities up to $1 per square foot in energy costs. Source: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/corp_real_estate/Facts.pdf
As a rule of thumb: The older the building, the greater the opportunity for energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The exceptions, of course, are buildings that have recently undertaken energy efficiency retrofits and upgrades. Approximately 30% of 10-year-old buildings (that haven’t undergone EE retrofits) benefit from energy savings opportunities identified in a Screening Survey. Approximately 100% of 30-year-old buildings (that haven’t undergone EE retrofits) benefit. Most states implemented energy efficiency standards in their building codes beginning in the mid- to late-1970s. Often these building efficiency standards have been updated over time. As a result, in most states, newer buildings are required by law (building code) to be more energy efficient than older buildings.
For the techies, here are the specs – but they are basic enough to be read easily and, once again, effectively sell the benefits: - fixture … senses movement … no occupancy - Comparison: 110W on high mode and 35W on low mode - High mode: 35% energy savings - Low mode: 80% energy savings (WOW!!!) - Improved safety with bi-level technology due to visible response to movement
Last but certainly not least – the comparison photos with the relative annual kWh numbers to seal the deal. We’re going to switch back and forth between this slide and the next (Pre- vs. Post-) to see the relative lighting. The illumination is not very different, but look at the savings in kWh per year: 44,895 kWh vs. 9,090 kWh per year, a reduction of over 35,000 kWh - way over 50% per year. WOW!
Last but certainly not least – the comparison photos with the relative annual kWh numbers to seal the deal. We’re going to switch back and forth between this slide and the next (Pre- vs. Post-) to see the relative lighting. The illumination is not very different, but look at the savings in kWh per year: 44,895 kWh vs. 9,090 kWh per year, a reduction of over 35,000 kWh - way over 50% per year. WOW!
![REDUCING ENERGY COSTS Green Energy Solutions for Community, Corporate, and Industrial Facilities ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/commercegov-assoc-energysavingsfinal-short3-17-10pptminimizer-100330123840-phpapp02/85/bernie-kotlier-energy-efficiency-1-320.jpg)
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],GREEN ENERGY]()