1. Metrics That Matter: Energy Efficiency in Laboratories
Pam Greenley
MIT EHS Associate Director
Steve Lanou
MIT Deputy Director, Sustainability

2. Intro

3. What Does Campus Sustainability Mean at MIT?
Minimizing our campus energy and environmental footprint
Building and supporting a local community
Leading by example – sharing results
Creating a learning laboratory – “mens et manus”
Enabling and facilitating community aspirations

4. MIT is a city unto itself
Both natural landscapes and systems: water, land, air, even some habitat!
And technological systems
All these areas are living laboratories with challenges and opportunities abound!

5. Translating Sustainability Into Action
Power Production
Conservation & Efficiency
Sustainable Design
Transportation & Operations
Waste, Recycling & Composting
Community Engagement
Educational Opportunities
Community interested in sustainability continually expanding
Issues around climate change has galvanized students, staff and faculty
Our challenge:
Keeping the ball moving forward on our stewardship initiatives – demand is high from community
Ensuring we engage the diverse community CONSTUCTIVELY and aligned with our campus goals/objectives
Managing sustainability at MIT:
Lead responsibilities for sustainability shared between DOF and our EHS Headquarters office
DOF taking the lead on integrating sustainability into our capital projects, engineering, operations and planning
EHS plays lead role coordinating diverse activities, building institutional support, communicating progress and engaging our community stakeholders (students, town, peers)
Many other departments taking the lead in their respective areas of expertise: Information Services & Technology – own energy initiative
Power production highlights
1995 co-gen investment – improving plant efficiency 18% and reducing C02 emissions 32%
Co-gen expansion looks attractive for additional improvements and CO2 reductions
Solar initiatives have installed 60 kw capacity in 4 installations – strong interest and learning opportunity
Conservation and Efficiency:
$3 million over past several years is returning $2.2m in annual savings. Lighting, steam traps, and data-based commissioning and fume hood face velocity reductions
recent creation of a revolving fund for conservation is EXTREMELY promising – testament of confidence in DOFs approach
more details in Julia's presentation
Sustainable design
Early commitment to green building and progress in integrating sustainable design paying off: LEED Gold in new grad dorm;
Sloan School will be at least Gold and use 50% less energy than any other similar building on campus
Transportation
Through aggressive Transportation Demand Management Programs: single vehicle occupant (SOV) trips reduced 15% from 26% to 22%.
MIT’s planning and transportation efforts for improving bicycling resources recognized by the City: cash bike commuter benefits ($240 year); shower facilities; and bike discount for lockers and showers in athletic facilities, lots more protected parking, dedicated bike lanes bisecting campus…
Community Engagement: I will talk a bit about some highlights here…
***Report on Campus Energy Activities available*** HOLD UP

6. Current Metrics of “Sustainability”
Trailing Indicators: Good for overall assessment; not good for decision-making; data reflects last fiscal year.

7. Current Metrics of “Sustainability”

8. Cumulative Energy Savings
Energy Efficiency
Success to Date
Utilities purchased for FY12 $30M
= < 3% of overall operating budget
MIT ENERGY REDUCTION HISTORY update July 27,2012
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Totals
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES SAVINGS in mmbtu (million btus)
Lighting
2,880
925
5,333
4,640
8,062
Steam Traps
27,551
23,796
Continuous Commissioning
10,777
36,393
Variable Speed Drives NW35
5,360
CUP New chillers, Boiler 9, air compressor
10,836
3,216
New buildings Koch, E62, E60, W1
25,447
6,934
Demand ventilation and VSD Hayden Library
6,263
2,284
W70 replace chiller
3,300
46 Air change rate reduction
3,458
NW12 Cooling Loop
2,561
Residence Hall Refrigerator replacement
1,024
TOTAL EEMs (mmbtu)
30,430
11,701
41,725
52,545
30,839
191,038
$$ annual savings
$ ,800
$ ,413
$ ,111
$ ,000
$ 1,793,000
$ ,940
$ 4,499,264
Cumulative Energy Savings

9. You can’t build your way out

10. Building 18: Collaborative Experimentation
Building 18 Chemistry Building
Jeffrey Silverman
Jim Doughty

11. Reduce Fume Hood Face Velocity Building-Wide
Worked collaboratively with EHS experts to determine appropriate optimization of safety and efficiency
Collaborated with leading faculty and researchers
Tested range of face velocity rates
Consensus rate of 80 feet per minute rate identified
Recalibrated 130 hoods in Building 18 to 80 fpm from 100
Building control software modified
Air control valves reset
Air diffusers adjusted and relocated
Certified all hoods to ASHRE 110 standard
Results
Cost: $306,000
Estimated Annual Savings: $162,000
Simple Payback: 2 years
Performance monitored via Cimetrics system
Reduced rate now used in new facilities

13. Four Types of Projects for EHS Involvement
New Lab Buildings – Koch Institute
Single Principle Investigator lab renovation
Existing lab building energy conservation project
Supervising undergraduate research projects
My purpose in talking about our experience to share successes and lessons learned

14. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
Research Mission – Integrating biological investigation with engineering technology
40 laboratories, 500 researchers
180,000 sq ft of research and work space
100 hoods, x bsc’s
30% less HVAC energy use/ LEED Gold

15. Koch Institute Design Process
EHS brought in early
Facilities and EHS agreed to approaches
Type of hoods
Type of controls
Face Velocity
Duct Velocity
Heat Recovery
Challenged rules of thumb Using existing labs to confirm plug load

16. Final Lab Ventilation Design
EHS related considerations
VAV and CV hoods
80 fpm, 18-inch sash height (60 in future)
Occupied 6 ACH or hood min
Unoccupied 4 ACH or hood min
Heat pipe for heat recovery
Picture or this?Other Important EC
ACH driven by heat load(5 plug ,1 lighting w/ft2)
Low duct velocity , 1200 vs 2000 feet per minute
Segregation of freezers
Cascading air from offices to labs
Chilled beams in offices
During schematic design with MIT EHS and Facilities only – 3 or 4 meetings
Minimized surprises during design review

17. Koch Institute Lessons Learned To Date
Researchers questioned containment of quiet hoods
“Offices” in Labs
Occupancy sensors need
fine tuning
We could have educated researchers before they were questioning hoods

18. Continuation of Program
[Green Team
Ongoing Education of researchers]

19. Comprehensive Stewardship Group
What if metrics weren’t trailing, but were real-time?
Or better…Predictive?
From equipment level…

20. Comprehensive Stewardship Group
To building level

21. Comprehensive Stewardship Group
To portfolio level

22. The Perfect Lab Energy Conservation Project – Existing Building
Common Goals
Increase energy and material use efficiency
Safer Labs (appropriate ventilaiton)
More engaged and educated lab occupants
Increased Comfort and productivity
Lab level energy use info provided real time
They understand how their lab ventilation system works.
EHS looking for opportunities to increase knowledge of lab research activities and re

23. Process Steps- Existing Lab
Project Scope – upgrade/re-lace hoods, equipment, plenum exhaust with HR, offices out of labs
Set up Building User Group
Lab level risk assessment done to determine correct number and type of hoods, what lab equipment replaced
Design verified with computa-tional flow dynamics
Behaviour change due to lab level EC information
Commis-sioning