1. Morofsky1 Low-energy Building Design, Economics and the Role of Energy Storage Canadian possibilities based on the Model National Energy Code for Buildings

2. Morofsky2 Model National Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB) 1997 The MNECB is a model code that can be adopted (or adapted) by any province or territory in Canada. The MNECB references Canadian standards and regulations and uses metric (SI) units. Cost-effectiveness of the provisions was guiding principle of the MNECB. Country was divided into 34 administrative regions because of variation of construction and energy costs and climate. Life-cycle cost process applied in each region.

3. Morofsky3 Model National Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB) 1997 Provisions of MNECB are more stringent in colder regions and for buildings heated by more expensive fuels. Two paths to compliance - prescriptive and performance. Prescriptive - meet all mandatory and prescriptive requirements - easiest path to follow for compliance. Performance - involves detailed computer simulation - most flexible, but most complex path. Building does not have to meet some prescriptive requirements of Code but must not use more energy than prescriptive path.

4. Morofsky4 Individual measures with energy and cost comparisons to the base case.

5. Morofsky5 Measure set definitions: SA,..., SM

6. Morofsky6 Introduction Investigate the potential energy efficiency of office buildings from the appropriate application of available technologies. Objective - dramatically reduce whole building energy compared to a building constructed to Canada’s Model National Energy Code for Buildings 1997 (MNECB). Results of modeling efforts to-date on a small office building and how energy efficiency technologies can minimize energy use in office buildings in Canada. Heating and cooling load requirements for low energy office buildings in Canada and implications for energy storage.

7. Morofsky7 Two sustainable development departmental objectives

8. Morofsky8

9. 9

10. 10 Table 2. Space heating and cooling versus measure sets for Ottawa. Measure Sets S0SASBSCSDSESF SGSG SHSH SISJ SKSK SL SMSM Space Heating MJ 1,6 13 93 5 79 1 50 3 22 7 1,3 92 92 2 54 1 1,0 55 62 3 31 8 34 4 23 0 14 8 Reduction Heating %- 42 % 51 % 69 % 86 % 14 % 43 % 66 % 35 % 61 % 80 % 79 % 86 % 91 % Space Cooling MJ 23 5 19 2 19 0 24 4 15 2 16 2 14 9 16 8 19 9 20 8 24 0 12 5 13 1 14 0 Reduction Cooling %- 18 % 19 % -4%-4% 35 % 31 % 37 % 28 % 15 % 12 % -2%-2% 47 % 44 % 41 % Table 2. Space heating and cooling versus measure sets for Ottawa. Measure Sets S0SASBSCSDSESFSGSHSISJSKSLSM Space Heating MJ1,6139357915032271,3929225411,055623318344230148 Reduction Heating %-42%51%69%86%14%43%66%35%61%80%79%86%91% Space Cooling MJ235192190244152162149168199208240125131140 Reduction Cooling %-18%19%-4%35%31%37%28%15%12%-2%47%44%41%

11. Morofsky11 Energy Criteria - Low-rise Office (MNECB) - Ottawa (4200 m 2 ) Infiltration- 0.25 l/s/m 2 exterior wall Outdoor air- 0.4 l/s/m 2 floor area HVAC system- Individual zone packaged rooftop - DX air cooled (EER-8.9) with economizer - Gas-fired central boiler SHW system- Peak demand 90 W per person - Electric storage heaters

12. Morofsky12 Energy Use - Low-rise Office (MNECB) - Ottawa (4200 m 2 ) End Use kWh GJ % Total Heating 36,8443,099 61.2 Cooling 66,435 - 4.5 SHW 53,288 - 3.6 Lights217,863 -14.9 Equip/Appliances117,037 - 8.0 Fans 63,372 - 4.3 Pumps 8,297 - 0.6 Elevators 41,808 - 2.9 Total604,9443,099 100% Total (ekWh) 1,465,935 100% Building Peak 303 kW1,260 MJ / m2

13. Morofsky13 Example Path to Low Energy Use End UseMeasures Heating/Cooling- increase wall insulation (  RSI 0.9) - use argon, low-e, vinyl frame windows (U overall = 1.86) - ground-source heat pump system (EER-15.5, COP-3.4) SHW- low-flow faucets in washrooms (6.8 lpm) Lights- reduce lighting to 10.8 W/m 2

14. Morofsky14 Energy Use - Low-rise Office Example Low Energy End Use kWh GJ % Total % Change Heating 102,39216.1-88 Cooling 40,017 6.3-40 SHW 42,460 6.7-20 Lights 132,03020.7-39 Equipment / Appliances 117,03718.4 - Fans 110,69117.4+75 Pumps 50,643 7.9+510 Elevators 41,808 6.5 - Total 637,078100% Total (ekWh) 637,078100% - 56.5 % Building Peak205 kW546 MJ / m2

15. Morofsky15 Result of Applications of Measures The heating and cooling energy use has been reduced by 85% as a result of load reduction due to improved envelope and the efficiency of the heat pump. The service water heating energy use has been reduced by 20% as a result of the load reduction (less hot water use). Lighting energy use is down by 39% as a result of the lighting density change.

16. Morofsky16 Result of Applications of Measures (cont’d) Fan and pump energy use is up significantly with the ground-source heat pump system. Net result - 56.5% saving relative to the MNECB base case.

17. Morofsky17 GSHP Requirements Land requirement for a 100-meter vertical system is about 550 m2 less than the 32-meter square foot print if the building has four storeys. A typical cost might be $130,000. Note that the energy extracted and added to the ground exchanger is similar at 284 MWh heating and 202 MWh cooling.

18. Morofsky18 Further Steps to Lower Energy Use Heat / Cool - solar shading - displacement ventilation with HR - solar wall (ventilation pre-heat) - demand ventilation (CO 2 control) SHW- solar thermal heating Lighting- perimeter daylighting with automatic dimming - occupancy sensors

19. Morofsky19 Further Steps to Lower Energy Use Equipment /Appliances - office equipment-low idle power use / smart controls Fans / Pumps- energy efficient fans / pumps / motors - variable speed pumps Elevators- efficiency measures for elevators Power- microturbine with heat recovery - photovoltaics

20. Morofsky20 GSHP Conclusions Office building energy use can be significantly reduced in new building design compared to the MNECB. The example presented was 56%. More opportunities exist to reduce heating load (heat recovery), further improve lighting and incorporate on-site power production /cogeneration. Ground-source heat pump system heat exchanger layout fits within footprint of building.

21. Morofsky21 Energy savings over 50% were achieved in five measure sets (SG, SJ, SK, SL, SM) and four had discounted payback periods between 2.5 and 6 years. 25% reductions compared to the base case building with no incremental cost (SE, SF, SH, SI). Designs can result in energy savings of 30 to 40% with no incremental cost. The integrated design process process has been successfully applied where the energy reductions have confirmed simulation results. Existing buildings represent a much larger opportunity than new buildings. Many measures would be applicable when major system upgrades, replacements or building retrofits are undertaken. Even pre-mature retrofits could be justified on a life cycle cost basis. General Conclusions