1. Feasibility Study of Geothermal Heating Systems at Ithaca College Sanya Levi Prof. Beth Ellen Clark April 6, 2005 Whalen Symposium

2. The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies Example of a campus building that uses geothermal heat pumps

3. Requirements for LEED certification  Minimum Energy Performance  CFC Reduction in HVAC Equipment Geothermal Heat Pumps

4. Energy Efficient Environmentally Friendly Greenhouse reduction is equal to planting 1 acre of trees or taking 2 cars off the road

5. Geothermal Systems

6. Refrigerator

7. Geothermal Heat Pump

8. Comparison between conventional system and geothermal heat pump Q=mcΔT average winter day 22F or 268K average room temperature 74F or 298K energy required Q1=mc(30K) average annual temperature60F or 291K average desired room 74F or 298K energy required Q2=mc(7K) Q1/Q2 = mc(30K)/mc(7K) = 4 Geothermal is 4 times more efficient

9. Why geothermal  Stable Heat Source - Energy Efficient  Indoor unit Reduced noiseReduced noise Low maintenanceLow maintenance No vandalism or weatheringNo vandalism or weathering  No back up heat source required Greatly reduces the greenhouse gas emissionsGreatly reduces the greenhouse gas emissions Does not burn fuelDoes not burn fuel

10. How much can we save by using geothermal heat pumps at IC?  Assumptions Fuel prices increase at about 2% Fuel prices increase at about 2% Payback time 25 years Payback time 25 years  Factors Current use of natural gas and electricity Current use of natural gas and electricity Installation cost Installation cost Incentives from the state Incentives from the state Electricity use is lower with heat pumps Electricity use is lower with heat pumps Fuel is unnecessary with heat pumps Fuel is unnecessary with heat pumps

11. Center of Natural Sciences Yearly Operating and Maintenance Cost Yearly Cumulative Savings

12. Gannet Center Yearly Operating and Maintenance CostCumulative Yearly Savings

13. Muller Hall Yearly Operating and Maintenance CostCumulative Yearly Savings

14. Conclusion  Our study indicates that GHPs are economically feasible  Savings $25,000-112,000 per building per year $25,000-112,000 per building per year 85 million ft 3 fuel per year (CNS) 85 million ft 3 fuel per year (CNS) 10,200,000 lbs of CO 2 per building per year (CNS) 10,200,000 lbs of CO 2 per building per year (CNS)  GHPs are an important option that IC needs to consider to make existing buildings more sustainable