Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

Section 11

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations 11.0.0 Water Supply Force Units (WSFUs) Established by the Uniform Plumbing Code Determines the Water Supply Required for Proper Functioning of Plumbing Fixtures. Developing Plumbing Fixtures that Conserve Water, at an Economic Cost, is the Biggest Challenge Facing the Construction Industry Today 590 11.0.1 Mean Daily Residential Water Use as Determined at 12 Study Sites 591 11.0.2 Calculate Usage Based upon Maximum Allowable Water Efficiency Standards for Toilets, Kitchen and Lavatory Faucets, and Shower Heads 591 11.0.3 Calculate Water Usage of Various Types of Low- and High-Volume Toilets 592 11.0.4 Reported Savings Due to Use of Low-Flow Toilets in Four Studies 592 11.1.0 Evolution of Low-Flow Toilet Testing Procedures 593 11.1.1 Three Common Types of Toilet Construction and Related Efficiencies 594 11.2.0 The National Efficiency Standards and Specifications for Residential and Commercial Water Using Fixtures Enacted in 1992 and Updated in 2005—Relating to Residential Fixtures 596 11.2.1 Current and Proposed Residential Dishwasher Standards 597 11.2.2 Current and Proposed Commercial Plumbing Fixture Water Usage Rates 598

Construction Calculations Manual. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-382243-7.00013-9 # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11.2.3 Current and Proposed Commercial Clothes Washers Water/Energy Usage Rates 11.2.4 Commercial Dishwashers—Only Current Energy Star, Water Sense Specifications Prevail 11.2.5 Automatic Commercial Ice Makers— No Current Standards—Proposed Only for 2010 11.3.0 U.S. Green Building Council LEED (R)—Plumbing Fixture Water Efficiency Goals 11.3.1 Preexisting State and Local Standards for Water-Efficient Plumbing Fixtures 11.3.2 Projected Reduction in Walter Consumption, 2010–2020—With and Without Daily Savings 11.4.0 Where Does Our Water Come From? Volume of Earth’s Oceans 11.5.0 How Much Water Do We Use on Average? 11.5.1 Create a Personal Water Usage Chart 11.6.0 Calculating the Size of Storage and Heat Pump Water Heaters 11.6.1 Calculating the Cost of a Demand, Storage, or Heat Pump Water Heater 11.7.0 HVAC—Understanding and Calculating Relative Humidity 11.7.1 HVAC—Understanding and Calculating Dewpoint 11.7.2 Methods of Calculating Heating Efficiency—Combined Heat and Power (CHP) 11.7.3 How Much Moisture Can the Air “Hold”?

599

600

601

602 605

606 607 607 608 609 610 611 612

612 616

589

590

Construction Calculations Manual

11.7.4 General Heating Formulas—Energy Required to Heat, Offset Losses 617 11.7.5 General Heating Formulas—Energy Required to Heat Air Flow 617 11.7.6 Formula to Convert Actual CFM (ACFM) to Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (SCFM) 617 11.8.0 Estimated Average Fuel Conversion Efficiency of Common Heating Appliances 618 11.8.1 Reading Those Gas Meters 619 11.9.0 Calculating Home Heating Energy—Gas versus Electric Resistance Heating 619

11.10.0 Comparing Fuel Costs of Heating and Cooling Systems—Gas, Electric, Kerosene, Wood, Pellets 621 11.11.0 Residential Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) Savings versus Electric, Gas, and Fuel Oil 630 11.11.1 Paybacks for Residential GSHP Economics 631 11.11.2 Commercial Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) Savings versus Electric, Gas, Fuel Oil 631 11.11.3 Paybacks for Commercial GSHP Economics 632

11.0.0 Water Supply Force Units (WSFUs) Established by the Uniform Plumbing Code Determines the Water Supply Required for Proper Functioning of Plumbing Fixtures. Developing Plumbing Fixtures that Conserve Water, at an Economic Cost, is the Biggest Challenge Facing the Construction Industry Today The Water Supply Fixture Units (WSFUs) are defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and can be used to determine the water supply to fixtures and their service systems.

Individual Fixtures

Minimum Fixture Branch Pipe Size (inch)

Bathtub Bathtub with 3/400 fill valve Bidet Dishwasher, domestic Drinking fountain Hose Bibb Lavatory Bar sink Clinic faucet sink Kitchen sink, domestic Laundry sink Service or mop basin Washup basin Shower head Urinal with flush tank Wash fountain Water closet with gravity tank Water closet with flushometer tank Water cooler 1 WFSU ¼ 1 GPM ¼ 3.79 liter/min Source: Uniform Plumbing Code.

Water Supply Fixture Units Private Installations

1/2 3/4 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 3/4 1/2 1/2 1/2

4 10 1 1.5 0.5 2.5 1 1 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 2 4 2.5 2.5 0.5

Public Installations 4 10 1.5 0.5 2.5 1 2 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 2.5 2.5 0.5

Section

11

591

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

11.0.1 Mean Daily Residential Water Use as Determined at 12 Study Sites Toilet

18.5

Clothes washer

15.0

Shower

11.6

Faucet

10.9

Leaks Other domestic Bath Dishwasher

9.5 1.6 1.2 1.0 0 5 Gallons per capita per day

10

15

20

FIGURE 1 Mean Daily Residential Water Use at 12 Study Sites. Source: Residential End Uses of Water, American Water Works Association Research Foundation (1999), p. xxv.

11.0.2 Calculate Usage Based upon Maximum Allowable Water Efficiency Standards for Toilets, Kitchen and Lavatory Faucets, and Shower Heads National Water Efficiency Standards Fixture Type

Maximum Allowable Water Use a

Toilets, including gravity tank-type toilets, flushometer tank toilets,b and electromechanical hydraulic toiletsc

1.6 gallons per flush

Kitchen and lavatory faucets (or replacement aeratorsd)

2.5 gallons per minute, when measured at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch

Showerheads

2.5 gallons per minute, when measured at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch

Urinals

1.0 gallon per flush

a

A gravity tank-type toilet is designed to flush by gravity only with water supplied to the bowl. A flushometer tank toilet is designed to flush using a flushometer valve, which is attached to a pressurized water supply pipe and, when actuated, opens the line for direct water flow into the bowl at a rate and predetermined quantity needed to properly operate the toilet. c An electromechanical hydraulic toilet is designed to flush using electronically controlled devices, such as air compressors, pumps, motors, or macerators in place of or as an aid to gravity in flushing the toilet bowl. d An aerator is an apparatus for controlling water flow (e.g., from faucets). b

Under the Department of Energy’s regulations, water-efficient plumbing fixtures must meet the standards for maximum water consumption. For each model of a regulated plumbing fixture, manufacturers and private labelers must submit a compliance statement to the Department to certify that the model complies with the applicable water conservation standard and that all required testing has been conducted according to the test requirements prescribed in the regulations. In addition, the Department’s regulations prohibit manufacturers

592

Construction Calculations Manual

and private labelers from distributing in commerce any fixture that does not meet the water conservation standard prescribed under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and provide for the assessment of a civil penalty of not more than $110 per violation. Source:U.S General Accounting Office.

11.0.3 Calculate Water Usage of Various Types of Low- and High-Volume Toilets

Water Use by Type of Toilet Average water use Household Toilet Types

Average Gallons per Flush

Low-flow only

<2.0

Mix of low-flow and higher-volume Higher-volume only All households

Number of Households

Gallons per Toilet per Day

Gallons per Capita per Day

101

24.2

9.6

2.0 – 3.5

311

45.4

17.6

>4.0

776

47.9

20.1

1188

45.2

18.5

Legend < means less than > means greater than Source: Residential End Uses of Water, American Water Works Association Research Foundation, pp. 131–132.

In addition to the comprehensive study by the American Water Works Association’s Research Foundation, a number of studies have used similarly sophisticated equipment to measure water flow to individual appliances at a small number of households. The purpose of these studies was to estimate whether water-efficient fixtures reduce water consumption in residences and if so, by how much. Toilets consume the most water in residences, and, as such, they have been the focus of the greatest attention, but showerheads, faucets, and clothes washers have also been considered in these studies, although clothes washers will not be subject to national standards until 2004. The studies all agree that compared with older toilets, ultra-low-flow toilets save significant amounts of water, easily overwhelming any changes in user practices (such as the frequency of flushing). Source:U.S. General Accounting Office.

11.0.4 Reported Savings Due to Use of Low-Flow Toilets in Four Studies While it is widely believed that the installation of water-efficient showerheads and sink faucets also results in significant savings, the studies we reviewed are not in complete agreement on this point. The East Bay, California, study reported savings of 1.7 gallons per capita per day with low-flow showerheads—about one-third of the savings resulting from toilet replacement. The Tampa, Florida, study reported savings of 3.6 gallons per capita per day—more than half of the savings from toilet replacement.

Section

11

593

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

Reported Savings Attributable to Low-Flow Toilets in Studies Using Precise Measurements Location

Water Use in Toilets (gal. per capita per day)

Boulder, COa

Date Published

Number of Households

Before Retrofit

After Retrofit

Amount Saved

Percentage Saved

May 1996

14

15.9

7.6

8.3

52

c

c

c

41c

East Bay Municipal Utility District, CA

Oct. 1991

25

12.8

6.7

5.3

Seattle, WAb

July 2000 (draft)

37

18.8

8.1

10.6

57

Tampa, FL

Feb. 1993

25

13.3

7.2

6.1

46

a In this study, half of the toilets were replaced with low-flow toilets and half were not; the reported savings were obtained by averaging the results for all toilets—higher-volume and low-flow. For the purpose of this table, we computed the water use and the amount of savings on the basis of the results for the replaced toilets. b We obtained a copy of the draft report on this study. Because the authors are still finalizing the report, we did not have all of the information that would be useful in evaluating the results of this study. c Because the study did not explicitly report the average water use before and after retrofit, we estimated these values by multiplying the average volume per flush by the number of flushes per person. The difference between these values does not equal the amount of savings reported in the study, which was measured separately for each toilet before averaging and, thus, is more accurate.

Sources Boulder: Project Report: Measuring Actual Retrofit Savings and Conservation Effectiveness Using Flow Trace Analysis. Prepared for: City of Boulder, Colorado, Utilities Division, Office of Water Conservation, by Aquacraft Water Engineering & Management (May 16, 1996). East Bay: East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Conservation Study. Prepared for: East Bay MUD, Oakland, California, A. Aher et al., Stevens Institute of Technology, Building Technology Laboratory, T. P. Konen, Director, Report No. R 219 (Oct. 1991). Seattle: Draft report prepared for EPA and Seattle Public Utilities, by P. Mayer and W. DeOreo, Aquacraft, Inc., private communication from P. Mayer (July 2000). Tampa: The Impact of Water Conserving Plumbing Fixtures on Residential Water Use Characteristics: A Case Study in Tampa, Florida. Prepared for: City of Tampa Water Department, Water Conservation Section, by Stevens Institute of Technology and Ayres Associates, T. P. Konen and D. L. Anderson, Principal Investigators (Feb. 1993).

11.1.0 Evolution of Low-Flow Toilet Testing Procedures

Evolution of Industry Testing Requirements for Low-Flow Toilets Test Name

Test Description

1990 Edition

1995 Edition

Pending Revision, 2000a

Water consumption per flush

To determine average water consumption: average consumption shall not exceed 1.6 gallons.

New

Same

Same

Maximum water consumption per flush

To determine maximum water consumption after adjusting trim components for maximum water use: average water consumption shall not exceed 2.4 gallons.

N/A

N/A

New

Ball test

To determine solids removal: 100 polypropylene balls are placed in toilet bowl; 75 must be removed in initial flush.

Same

Same

Deleted; combined with granule test

Granule test

To determine solids removal: 2500 polyethylene disc-shaped pellets are placed in toilet bowl; not more than 125 may remain after initial flush.

Same

Same

Adds 100 nylon balls; not more than 3 are allowed to remain after initial flush (Continued)

594

Construction Calculations Manual

Evolution of Industry Testing Requirements for Low-Flow Toilets—Cont’d Test Name

Test Description

1990 Edition

1995 Edition

Pending Revision, 2000a

Ink line test

To determine rim washing: a water soluble ink is marked on a bowl’s surface; after initial flush, no line segment can exceed 1/2 inch, and aggregate of all segments may not exceed 2 inches.

Same

Same

A second line is added 2 inches below rim jets; this line is completely washed away

Dye test

To determine water exchange: a dye is added to bowl; 100% dilution must occur after initial flush.

Same

Same

Deleted

Trap seal test

To determine if trap seal works properly: fixture must return to full trap seal after each flush.

Same

Same

Same

Mixed media test

To determine solids removal: 12 sponges and 10 paper balls are used; not more than 4 sponges or balls may remain after initial flush.

N/A

N/A

New

Drain line carry test

To determine length of transport of solid wastes: fixture must carry waste a minimum of 40 feet in the drain line.

New

Same

Same

Overflow test

To determine leakage of gravity tank-type toilets: tank fill valve is opened to maximum flow for 5 minutes; fixture shall not leak.

N/A

N/A

New

Water rise test

To determine wetting of person sitting on seat during flush: a vertically positioned rod is placed 3 inches under the bowl rim; during flush, water should not touch rod.

New

Same

Deleted

Rim top and seat fouling test

To determine soiling of rim top and seat: a plate is placed over toilet bowl; no water shall splash on plate during flushing.

N/A

New

Deleted

Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.

11.1.1 Three Common Types of Toilet Construction and Related Efficiencies There are three common varieties of toilets: gravity flow, (siphon-jet) flush valve, and pressurized tank systems. Similarly, there are four common varieties of urinals: the siphonic jet urinal, washout/wash-down urinals, blowout urinals, and waterless urinals. All of these must meet federal water efficiency standards, though waterless urinals go far beyond the conservation minimums. Composting toilets also use no water, but potential applications are generally limited to national park facilities and small highway rest stops.

Opportunities The vast majority of toilets and urinals in federal facilities were installed at a time when there was little or no regard for using water efficiently. Consequently, there are ample opportunities to make significant savings in water usage. Complete replacement is the desired option. Retrofit of existing toilets and urinals is a second choice that may be more attractive if there are budget constraints. While retrofits reduce the amount of water

Section

11

595

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

used per flush, most fixtures were not designed to use reduced amounts of water and their performance may suffer. Only complete replacement of porcelain fixtures ensures that, even with less water, they can still perform efficiently and effectively.

Technical Information Toilets account for almost half of a typical building’s water consumption. Americans flush about 4.8 billion gallons (18.2 billion liters) of water down toilets each day, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. According to the Plumbing Foundation, replacing all existing toilets with 1.6 gallons (6 liters) per flush, ultra-low-flow (ULF) models would save almost 5500 gallons (25,000 liters) of water per person each year. A widespread toilet replacement program in New York City apartment buildings found an average 29% reduction in total water use for the buildings studied. The entire program, in which 1.3 million toilets were replaced, is estimated to be saving 60–80 million gallons (230–300 million liters) per day. There is a common perception that ULF toilets do not perform adequately. A number of early 1.6-gallonsper-flush (gpf) (6-liter) gravity-flush toilets that were simply adapted from 3.5- gpf (16-liter) models—rather than being designed from the ground up to operate effectively with the ULF volume—performed very poorly, and some low-cost toilets today still suffer from that problem. But studies show that most 1.6-gpf (6-liter) toilets work very well. Where flush performance is a particular concern, or water conservation beyond that of a 1.6-gpf (6-liter) model is required, pressurized-tank toilets, vacuum toilets, and dual-flush toilets should be considered. Carefully choose toilet models based on recommendations from industry surveys or experienced plumbers and facility managers. You may also want to contact some managers of facilities that have already installed the toilets under consideration. While some retrofit options for toilets reduce water use (see next page), none of these modifications will perform as effectively or use as little water as quality toilets manufactured after January 1, 1994. These retrofits will merely allow the fixture to operate using less water until it is replaced. Even greater water conservation can be achieved in certain (limited) applications with composting toilets. Because of the size of composting tanks, lack of knowledge about performance, local regulatory restrictions, and higher first-costs, composting toilets are rarely an option except in certain unique applications, such as national park facilities. Composting toilets are being used very successfully, for example, at Grand Canyon National Park. With urinals, water conservation well beyond the standard 1.0-gpf (4.5-liter) performance for new products can be obtained using waterless urinals. These products, available from the Waterless Company, use a special trap with a lightweight biodegradable oil that lets urine and water pass through but prevents odors from escaping into the restroom; there are no valves to fail, and clogging does not cause flooding.

Projected Water Savings from Installing Waterless Urinals Building Type Small Office New const. Restaurant New const. School New const.

No. Males

No. Urinals

Uses/ Day

Gal/ Flush

Days/ Year

Ann. Water Gallons

Savings/Urinal Liters

25 25 150 150 300 300

1 1 3 3 10 10

3 3 1 1 2 2

3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

260 260 360 360 185 185

58,500 19,500 54,000 18,000 33,300 11,100

220,000 73,800 204,000 68,100 126,000 42,000

Source: Environmental Building News, February 1998.

WaterSenseW or ENERGY STARW

EPAct 1992, EPAct 2005 (or backlog NAECA updates) Proposed/Future Standard

Current Specification

Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Fixtures and Appliances

Current Standard

Residential Toilets

1.6 gpf1

WaterSense 1.28 gpf with at least 350 gram waste removal2

No specification

Residential Bathroom Faucets

2.2 gpm at 60 psi3

WaterSense 1.5 gpm at 60 psi (no less than 0.8 gpm at 20 psi)4

No specification

Residential Showerheads Residential Clothes Washers

2.5 gpm at 80 psi MEF  1.26 ft3/ kWh/cycle *No specified water use factor

No specification

No specification

Proposed to DOE Asst. Sec. jointly by AHAM and efficiency advocates to be effective in 2011 MEF  1.26 ft3/kWh/cycle WF  9.5 gal/cycle/ft3

Proposed/Future Specification

ENERGY STAR (DOE) MEF  1.72 ft3/kWh/cycle; WF  8.0 gal/cycle/ ft3

Current Specification

Tier 1: MEF  1.80 ft3/kWh/ cycle; WF  7.5 gal/cycle/ft3 Tier 2: MEF  2.00 ft3/kWh/ cycle; WF  6.0 gal/cycle/ft3 Tier 3: MEF  2.20 ft3/kWh/ cycle; WF  4.5 gal/cycle/ft3

1

EPAct 1992 standard for toilets applies to both commercial and residential models. See WaterSense HET specification at http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/spechet508.pdf. 3 EPAct 1992 standard for faucets applies to both commercial and residential models. 4 See WaterSense specification for lavatory faucets at http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/faucet spec508.pdf. 2

DOE: Department of Energy EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EPAct 1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005

EF: energy factor ft3: cubic feet gal: gallons gpm: gallons per minute

gpf: gallons per flush kWh: kilowatt hour MEF: modified energy factor MaP: maximum performance

NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act psi: pounds per square inch WF: water factor

Proposed/ Future Specification

Construction Calculations Manual

ENERGY STAR (DOE) Effective July 1, 2009: MEF  1.8 ft3/ kWh/cycle WF  7.5 gal/cycle/ ft3 Effective January 1, 2011: MEF  2.0 ft3/ kWh/cycle WF  6.0 gal/cycle/ ft3

596

11.2.0 The National Efficiency Standards and Specifications for Residential and Commercial Water Using Fixtures Enacted in 1992 and updated in 2005—Relating to Residential Fixtures

Section 11

11.2.1 Current and Proposed Residential Dishwasher Standards Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Fixtures and Appliances

Current Standard

Proposed/Future Standard

Current Specification

Proposed/Future Specification

Current Specification

Proposed/ Future Specification

Residential Dishwashers5

Standard models: EF  0.46 cycles/kWh

New standards under development:

Compact models: EF  0.62 cycles/kWh *No specified water use factor

DOE scheduled final action: March 2009; Stakeholder meeting held 4/27/2006

ENERGY STAR (DOE) Standard models. EF  0.65 cycles/kWh

Proposed to DOE Asst. Sec. jointly by AHAM & efficiency advocates to be effective in 2009 Standard models: 324 kWh/year (0.68 EF þ 1 watt standby) WF  5.8 gallons/cycle

Standard models: Tier 1: EF  0.65 cycles/kWh; maximum 339 kWh/year Tier 2: EF  0.68 cycles/kWh; maximum 325 kWh/year Compact models: Tier 1: EF  0.88 cycles/kWh; maximum 252 kWh/year *No specified water use factor

In December 2006, CEE announced they will consider adding a water factor in future dishwasher specifications

(Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007: As of January 1, 2010 Standard models: 355 kWh/year WF  6.5 gallons/cycle Compact models: 260 kWh/year WF  4.5 gallons/cycle)

Proposed to DOE Asst. Sec. jointly by AHAM and efficiency advocates to be effective in 2010 Standard models: 355 kWh/year (.62 EF þ 1 watt standby) WF  6.5 gallons/cycle

Compact models: EF  0.88 cycles/ kWh *No specified water use factor

Compact models: 260 kWh/year WF  4.5 gallons/cycle 5

Compact models: 234 kWh/year WF  4.0 gallons/cycle Phase Two (Proposed by DOE): July 1, 2011 Standard models: 307 kWh/yr 5.0 gallons/cycle Compact models: 222 kWh/yr 3.5 gallons/cycle

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

WaterSenseW or ENERGY STARW

EPAct 1992, EPAct 2005 (or backlog NAECA updates)

Standard models: capacity is greater than or equal to eight place settings and six serving pieces; Compact models: capacity is less than eight place settings and six serving pieces

DOE: Department of Energy EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EPAct 1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005

EF: energy factor ft3: cubic feet gal: gallons gpm: gallons per minute

gpf: gallons per flush kWh: kilowatt hour MEF: modified energy factor MaP: maximum performance

NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act psi: pounds per square inch WF: water factor

597

598

11.2.2 Current and Proposed Commercial Plumbing Fixture Water Usage Rates EPAct 1992, EPAct 2005 (or backlog NAECA updates) Proposed/ Future Standard

WaterSenseW or ENERGY STARW

Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Fixtures and Applainces

Current Standard

Commercial Toilets

1.6 gpf6

No Specification7

No specification

Urinals

1.0 gpf

No specification

No specification

Commercial Faucets

2.2 gpm at 60 psi NOTE: Superseded by national plumbing codes (UPC, IPC, and NSPC) for all “public” lavatories: 0.5 gpm maximum.8 0.25 gallon per cycle for metering faucets

WaterSense specification applicable to private lavatories (e.g. hotel room bathrooms)9

No specification

Current Specification

Proposed/ Future Specification

Current Specification

Proposed/ Future Specification

1.5 gpm at 60 psi (no less than 0.8 gpm at 20 psi)

6

EPAct 1992 standard for toilets applies to both commercial and residential models. No specification for flushometer valve toilets. WaterSense Specification (http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/spechet508.pdf) applicable to tank type toilets found in some commercial applications. 8 In addition to EPAct requirements, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard for public lavatory faucets is 0.5 gpm at 60 psi (ASME A112.18.1-2005). Public lavatory faucets are those intended for the unrestricted use of more than one individual (including employees) in assembly occupancies, business occupancies, public buildings, transportation facilities, schools and other educational facilities, office buildings, restaurants, bars, other food service facilities, mercantile facilities, manufacturing facilities, military facilities, and other facilities that are not intended for private use. 9 Specification for bathroom sink faucets and faucet accessories (e.g., aerators, flow regulators, laminar devices), applicable to some commercial situations (e.g., hotel room bathrooms). Not applicable to public lavatory faucets (see footnote 8). 7

EF: energy factor ft3: cubic feet gal: gallons gpm: gallons per minute

gpf: gallons per flush kWh: kilowatt hour MEF: modified energy factor MaP: maximum performance

NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act psi: pounds per square inch WF: water factor

Construction Calculations Manual

DOE: Department of Energy EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EPAct 1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005

Section 11

WaterSenseW or ENERGY STARW

EPAct 1992, EPAct 2005 (or backlog NAECA updates)

Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Fixtures and Appliances

Current Standard

Proposed/Future Standard

Current Specification

Proposed/Future Specification

Current Specification

Commercial Clothes Washers (Familysized)

MEF  1.26 ft3/ kWh/cycle; WF  9.5 gal/ cycle/ft3

New standards under development:

ENERGY STAR (DOE) MEF  1.72 ft3/ kWh/cycle; WF  8.0 gal/ cycle/ft3

Effective July 1, 2009 MEF  1.8 ft3/kWh/ cycle

Tier 1: MEF  1.80 ft3/ kWh/cycle; WF  7.5 gal/ cycle/ft3 Tier 2: MEF  2.00 ft3/ kWh/cycle; WF  6.0 gal/ cycle/ft3 Tier 3: MEF  2.20 ft3/ kWh/cycle; WF  4.5 gal/ cycle/ft3

DOE scheduled final action: January 2010; Stakeholder meeting held 4/27/2006

DOE: Department of Energy EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EPAct 1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005

EF: energy factor ft3: cubic feet gal: gallons gpm: gallons per minute

gpf: gallons per flush kWh: kilowatt hour MEF: modified energy factor MaP: maximum performance

Effective January 1, 2011 MEF  2.0 ft3/kWh/ cycle WF  6.0 gal/cycle/ft3

Proposed/Future Specification

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

11.2.3 Current and Proposed Commercial Clothes Washers Water/Energy Usage Rates

NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act psi: pounds per square inch WF: water factor

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

599

600

11.2.4 Commercial Dishwashers—Only Current Energy Star, Water Sense Specifications Prevail WaterSenseW or ENERGY STARW

EPAct 1992, EPAct 2005 (or backlog NAECA updates) Fixtures and Appliances

Current Standard

Commercial Dishwashers

No standard

Current Specification ENERGY STAR (EPA) Water Consumption; Idle Energy: Under counter. Hi Temp:  1.0 gal/rack;  0.9 kW Lo Temp:  1.70 gal/rack;  0.5 kW Stationary Single Tank Door. Hi Temp:  0.95 gal/rack;  1.0 kW Lo Temp:  1.18 gal/rack;  0.6 kW Single Tank Conveyor. Hi Temp:  0.70 gal/rack;  2.0 kW Lo Temp:  0.79 gal/rack;  1.6 kW Multiple Tank Conveyor. Hi Temp:  0.54 gal/rack;  2.6 kW Lo Temp:  0.54 gal/rack;  2.0 kW

EF: energy factor ft3: cubic feet gal: gallons gpm: gallons per minute

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

gpf: gallons per flush kWh: kilowatt hour MEF: modified energy factor MaP: maximum performance

Proposed/Future Specification

Current Specification

Proposed/Future Specification

No specification

NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act psi: pounds per square inch WF: water factor

Construction Calculations Manual

DOE: Department of Energy EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EPAct 1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005

Proposed/Future Standard

Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Section

11.2.5 Automatic Commercial Ice Makers—No Current Standards—Proposed Only for 2010

11

WaterSenseW or ENERGY STARW

Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Fixtures and Appliances

Current Standard

Proposed/Future Standard

Current Specification

Proposed/Future Specification

Current Specification

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers10

No standard

Effective 1/1/2010: Energy and condenser water efficiency standards vary by equipment type on a sliding scale depending on harvest rate and type of cooling (see link to additional information at end of this table)

No specification

ENERGY STAR (EPA) Effective 1/1/08: Energy and water efficiency standards vary by equipment type on a sliding scale depending on harvest rate. Water cooled machines excluded from Energy Star (see link to additional information at end of this table)

Energy and water (potable and condenser) standards are tiered and vary by equipment type on a sliding scale depending on harvest rate and type of cooling (see link to additional information at end of this table)

Pre-rinse Spray Valves

Flow rate  1.6 gpm (no pressure specified; no performance requirement)

No specification

Proposed ENERGY STAR specification abandoned after standard established in EPAct 2005

No specification (program guidance recommends 1.6 gpm at 60 psi and a cleanability requirement)

10

Proposed/ Future Specification

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

EPAct 1992, EPAct 2005 (or backlog NAECA updates)

WaterSense specification under consideration

Optional standards for other types of automatic ice makers are also authorized under EPAct 2005.

DOE: Department of Energy EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EPAct 1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005

EF: energy factor ft3: cubic feet gal: gallons gpm: gallons per minute

gpf: gallons per flush kWh: kilowatt hour MEF: modified energy factor MaP: maximum performance

NAECA: National Appliance Energy Conservation Act psi: pounds per square inch WF: water factor

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

601

602

Construction Calculations Manual

11.3.0 U.S. Green Building Council LEED (R)—Plumbing Fixture Water Efficiency Goals The Water Efficiency category of the LEEDW rating system is the least emphasized, with a potential of three LEEDW points obtainable through Innovative Waste Water Technologies and Water Use Reduction. The LEEDW rating system for Water Use Reduction is based on the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992. This Act set maximum plumbing fixture flow rates.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 Fixture: Water Closet Urinals Faucets Shower Heads

Maximum Flow Rate: 1.6 Gallons Per Flush (GPF) 1.0 Gallons Per Flush (GPF) 2.5 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) 2.5 Gallons Per Minute (GPM)

We now have a basis to evaluate sustainable features in a nonresidential building. The purpose of LEEDW is to make buildings more efficient and sustainable than the maximum required levels. I will not differentiate between new or existing construction, it should be clear which features will be easiest to implement in the type of building you are evaluating or designing.

Innovative Waste Water Technologies: WE Credit 2, 1-Point (Based on LEEDW-NC Version 2.2 Reference Guide)

Intent: To reduce generation of wastewater and potable water demand, while increasing the local aquifer recharge.

Requirements: Option 1 Reduce potable water use for building sewage conveyance by 50% through the use of water-conserving fixtures (water closets and urinals) or nonpotable water (captured rainwater, recycled graywater, and on-site or municipally treated wastewater). OR

Option 2 Treat 50% of wastewater on-site to tertiary standards. Treated water must be filtered or used on-site. My experience is that the collection of rainwater is a fairly straightforward method of obtaining this credit point. I recommend the collection of rainwater from the roof rather than parking lots, which contain oils and other hazardous waste contaminants that are more difficult to filter and handle for disposal to be used in the plumbing system. The collection of rainwater requires that the rainwater drainage system be collected and piped to a collection tank(s) (underground or above ground). The rainwater is in most cases pumped from

Section

11

603

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

the collection tank through a series of filters (5 micron to collect the large particles and 50 micron to collect any other solids) and then passed through a UV sterilizer to kill any bacteria. The collected rainwater is now ready to be used to flush the water closets and urinals. Keep in mind that this is nonpotable and should be treated as such. In my designs I provide a backup connection to the potable water system in the building in the event no rainwater is available. The backup connection of potable water is protected by a reducedpressure backflow device to protect the building potable water system from the cross-connected reclaimed rainwater. This system is most likely to be designed in new construction, since an existing building retrofit would be cost prohibitive.

Example Case: In this example, we will show potable water calculations for sewage flows for a nonresidential building with an occupant capacity of 100 (50 males and 50 females). The calculation is based on a typical 8-hour workday. Male occupants are assumed to use water closets once and urinals twice a day. Female occupants are assumed to use water closets three times. Baseline Case Fixture Type Water Closet (Male) Water Closet (Female) Urinal (Male)

Daily Uses

Flow Rate (GPF)

Occupants

Sewage Generation (GAL)

1 3 2

1.6 1.6 1.0

50 50 50

80 240 100

Daily Uses

Flow Rate (GPF)

Occupants

Sewage Generation (GAL)

1 3 2

1.2 1.2 0.5

50 50 50

60 180 50

Total Daily Volume (GAL) 420 Annual Work Days 260 TOTAL ANNUAL VOLUME (GAL) 109,200

Design Case Fixture Type Water Closet (Male) Water Closet (Female) Urinal (Male)

Total Daily Volume (GAL) 290 Annual Work Days 260 Annual Volume (GAL) 75,400 Rainwater Volume (GAL) (25,000) TOTAL ANNUAL VOLUME (GAL) 50,400 The baseline case flow rates use the maximum flow rates based on the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992. Using a combination of water-conserving fixtures and rainwater collection, the design case building indicates a 54% reduction in potable water volume used for sewage conveyance; this therefore qualifies for the one point credit.

604

Construction Calculations Manual

Baseline Case Fixture Type

Daily Uses

Flow Rate (GPF)

Duration (flush)

Auto Controls (N/A)

Occupants

Water Use (GAL)

Water Closet (Male)

1

1.6

1

50

80

Water Closet (Female)

3

1.6

1

50

240

Urinal (Male)

2

1.0

1

50

100

Fixture Type

Daily Uses

Flow Rate (GPM)

Duration (Sec)

Auto Controls

Occupants

Water Use (GAL)

Lavatory

3

2.5

15

No

100

188

Auto Controls (N/A)

Occupants

Water Use (GAL)

Total Daily Volume (GAL) 608 Annual Work Days 260 TOTAL ANNUAL VOLUME (GAL) 158,080 Design Case Fixture Type

Daily Uses

Flow Rate (GPF)

Duration (flush)

Water Closet (Male)

1

1.2

1

50

60

Water Closet (Female)

3

1.2

1

50

180

Urinal (Male)

2

0.5

1

50

50

Fixture Type

Daily Uses

Flow Rate (GPM)

Duration (Sec)

Auto Controls

Occupants

Lavatory

3

0.5

10

Yes

100

Water Use (GAL) 25

Total Daily Volume (GAL) 315 Annual Work Days 260 TOTAL ANNUAL VOLUME (GAL) 81,900 The baseline case flow rates use the maximum flow rates based on the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992. Using a combination of water conserving fixtures the design case building indicates a 48% reduction in potable water volume; this therefore qualifies for the one-point credit for the 20% reduction plus an additional one point for exceeding the 30% water-use reduction for a total of two LEEDW points. What makes this so simple is the fact that standard fixtures are available from all the major fixture manufacturers to meet these criteria. If we only used a 0.5 GPF urinal and water-saving metering faucets on the lavatories, we would still realize a 35% water reduction without changing the water closets.

Section

11

605

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

The LEEDW point system also allows for Innovative & Design Process points (maximum of 4). These allow the designer to submit to the USGBC an innovative design concept that might not be covered within the existing point structure, such as Press-Fit copper piping or CSST gas piping. These systems may qualify for an innovative credit point because they use recyclable materials and are solder-less and oil-less, which is environmental friendly.

11.3.1 Preexisting State and Local Standards for Water-Efficient Plumbing Fixtures Preexisting State and Local Standards for Water-Efficient Plumbing Fixtures and Their Status If National Standards Were Repealed Sixteen states and six localities had water efficiency standards for at least two of the plumbing fixtures regulated under the Energy Policy Act before the national standards took effect in 1994. Table shown below compares the standards adopted by each jurisdiction with the national standards.

State and Local Standards for Water-Efficient Plumbing Fixtures Water Efficiency Standard a

State/Locality

Effective Date

National Standard

Jan. 1, 1994

1.6

2.50

2.5

2.5

1.0

Jan. 1, 1993 Jan. 1, 1992 Jan. 1, 1990 Apr. 1, 1992 Apr. 1, 1992 Apr. 1, 1992 Mar. 2, 1989 Mar. 1, 1993 July 1, 1991 Jan. 1, 1992 Jan. 1, 1993 July 1, 1993 Mar. 1, 1991 Jan. 1, 1992 July 1, 1992 July 1, 1993

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.50 2.50

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 None 2.5 3.0 None 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.2 None 2.5

2.0 None 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 None 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.2 None 2.5

None 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 None 1.0

Jan. 1, 1992 Mar. 1, 1992 Jan. 1, 1992 Mar. 26, 1992 Apr. 1, 1991 June 1, 1990

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0

2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.50

2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 None 2.0

2.0 2.2 2.0 2.2 None 2.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0

Ultra-LowFlow Toilets (gal. per flush)

Low-Flow Kitchen Lavatory Urinals Showerhead Faucets (gal. Faucets (gal. (gal. per (gal. per minute) per min.) per min.) flush)

States Arizona California Connecticutb Delaware Georgia Maryland Massachusetts Nevada New Jerseyb New Yorkb North Carolinab Oregon Rhode Islandb Texas Utah Washington Localities Dade County, FL Denver, CO District of Columbia Hillsborough County, FL Palm Beach, FLb Tampa, FLb

606

Construction Calculations Manual

11.3.2 Projected Reduction in Walter Consumption 2010–2020—With and Without Daily Savings Projected Reduction in Water Consumption by 2010 and 2020, by Location Projected Water Use and Savings in Millions of Gallons per Day Average Daily Water Use Location Austin, TX, City of Austin Water & Wastewater Utility

Boston, MA, Boston Water & Sewer Commission

Cary, NC, Town of Cary

Clarksburg, WVa, Clarksburg Water Board

Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Water Department

Laurel, MD, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

Los Angeles, CA, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

Michigan City, IN, Michigan City Department of Water

Oceanside, CA, City of Oceanside Water

Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Water Services

Pinellas County, FL, Pinellas County Utilities

Projected Daily Water Savings

Population

Year

Without Water Efficiency Standards

With Water Efficiency Standards

Amount

Percentage

650,000

2010

167.5

160.8

6.7

4.0

2020

230.9

215.2

15.7

6.8

2010

84.2

81.0

3.2

3.8

2020

85.1

79.4

5.7

6.7

2010

16.1

15.1

1.0

6.2

2020

23.1

21.0

2.1

9.1

2010

2.9

2.8

0.1

3.4

2020

3.6

3.4

0.2

5.5

2010

170.0

166.6

3.4

2.0

2020

178.8

172.9

5.9

3.3

2010

206.3

199.7

6.6

3.2

2020

224.1

212.0

12.1

5.4

2010

560.6

542.1

18.5

3.3

2020

560.3

527.8

32.5

5.8

2010

12.1

11.7

0.4

3.3

2020

12.7

12.0

0.7

5.5

2010

37.5

36.6

0.9

2.4

2020

46.2

44.4

1.8

3.9

2010

341.4

331.5

9.9

2.9

2020

393.6

375.1

18.5

4.7

2010

84.4

80.6

3.8

4.5

650,000

84,779

19,000

753,116

1,700,000

3,800,000

41,000

157,869

1,252,425

643,191

Section

11

607

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

11.4.0 Where Does Our Water Come From? Volume of Earth’s Oceans Ice Groundwater Lakes Soil Moisture Water Vapor in the Atmosphere Rivers

29,492 6,733 242 74 14 1.3

2.2 0.5 0.02 0.005 0.001 0.0001

Much of this ice is in the Antarctic Underground aquifers, deep wells Provide drinking water, irrigation water, fish and recreation This is being used by our crops, trees, and surface vegetation Clouds, fog, and dew Provide water for drinking, irrigation, and recreation

Adapted from: Environment Canada.

One Estimate of Global Water Distribution Water Source Oceans, Seas, & Bays Ice caps, Glaciers, & Permanent Snow Groundwater Fresh Saline Soil Moisture Ground Ice & Permafrost Lakes Fresh Saline

Water Volume, in cubic miles

Water Volume, in cubic kilometers

Percent of Fresh Water

Percent of Total Water

321,000,000 5,773,000 5,614,000 2,526,000 3,088,000 3,959 71,970 42,320 21,830 20,490

1,338,000,000 24,064,000 23,400,000 10,530,000 12,870,000 16,500 300,000 176,400 91,000 85,400

– 68.7 – 30.1 – 0.05 0.86 – 0.26 –

96.5 1.74 1.7 0.76 0.94 0.001 0.022 0.013 0.007 0.006

11.5.0 How Much Water Do We Use on Average? Managing Water Resources Having a reliable and safe supply of fresh water is very important for us to stay alive. The way that many of us live our lives means that we use a lot more fresh water than we need just to stay alive. If the number of people in the world increases and they all use more fresh water, we will not be able to supply all the fresh water that is wanted. One way of helping to solve this problem is for each of us to use fresh water more carefully.

Activity 1: Making an estimate Here’s how to estimate how much water you use each day: Fill in the first column of the table below for the volume of water that you use, on average, each day. Then calculate how much water you use in a year. In some cases you will need to work out your share of the water used in your home. These cases are marked with a * in the table. For example, if your family uses a washing machine to wash clothes three times a week this uses 3  120 ¼ 360 liters per week. On average, this is 360  7 ¼ 51 liters per day. If there are five members of your family, this is just over 10 liters per day for each member of the family. You will probably find the following average values helpful: l l l l l

Brushing teeth: Cooking a meal: Flushing toilet: Washing hands: Dish washer:

0.01–1 liter 1–5 liters 5–10 liters 1–3 liters 30–50 liters

608 l l l l l l

Construction Calculations Manual

Washing machine: Shower: Cleaning car: Drinking: Watering garden: Bath:

30–100 liters 1–40 liters 5–200 liters 1–2 liters 1–17 liters per m2 50–150 liters

(Washing clothes or dishes by hand only uses a quarter as much water.) To convert these UNESCO litres to gallons 1 liter ¼ 0.264 gallons 3 liters ¼ 0.79 gallons 5 liters ¼ 1.3 galloons 10 liters ¼ 2.64 gallons 17 liters ¼ 4.49 gallons 30 liters ¼ 7.925 gallons 40 liters ¼ 10.57 gallons 50 liters ¼ 13.21 gallons 150 liters ¼ 39.6 galloons 200 liters ¼ 52.8 gallons

11.5.1 Create a Personal Water Usage Chart Activity Handout How Much Water do You Use? Survey: How Much Water Do You Use? ▶ DIRECTIONS This is a survey to find how much water you use in your home during one full week. Place a tally mark in the Times per Day column every time someone in your family does the activity. Activity

Times per Day Sun

Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri

Weekly Total

Sat

Water per Activity*

Total Water Used

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  5 gallons ¼

__________

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  25 gallons ¼

__________

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  35 gallons ¼

__________

Tub Bath

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  35 gallons ¼

__________

Teeth Brushing

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  2 gallons ¼

__________

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  30 gallons ¼

__________

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  10 gallons ¼

__________

Using Dishwasher

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  20 gallons ¼

__________

Washing Clothes

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

________  40 gallons ¼ __________ GRAND TOTAL ¼ __________

Toilet Flushing Short Shower (5-10 minutes) Long Shower (>10 minutes)

Washing Dishes with Running Water Washing Dishes Filling a Basin

NOTE: Another significant seasonal water use is lawn and garden watering. This survey deals with daily water use in the home, but most of us use additional amounts of water at school, at work, and other places throughout the day. *These are estimated values. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Section

11

609

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

11.6.0 Calculating the Size of Storage and Heat Pump Water Heaters U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Savers Sizing Storage and Heat Pump (with Tank) Water Heaters To properly size a storage water heater—including a heat pump water heater with a tank— for your home, use the water heater’s first hour rating (FHR). The FHR is the amount of hot water in gallons the heater can supply per hour (starting with a tank full of hot water). It depends on the tank capacity, source of heat (burner or element), and the size of the burner or element. The EnergyGuide Label lists the FHR in the top left corner as “Capacity (first hour rating).” The Federal Trade Commission requires an EnergyGuide Label on all new conventional storage water heaters but not on heat pump water heaters. Product literature from a manufacturer may also provide the FHR. Look for water heater models with a FHR that matches within 1 or 2 gallons of your peak hour demand—the daily peak 1-hour hot water demand for your home. Do the following to estimate your peak hour demand: l

l

Determine what time of day (morning, noon, evening) you use the most hot water in your home. Keep in mind the number of people living in your home. Use the worksheet below to estimate your maximum usage of hot water during this one hour of the day—this is your peak hour demand. Note: The worksheet does not estimate total daily hot water usage.

The worksheet example shows a total peak hour demand of 46 gallons. Therefore, this household would need a water heater model with a first hour rating of 44 to 48 gallons. Worksheet for Estimating Peak Hour Demand/First Hour Rating Use

Average Gallons of Hot Water per Usage

Shower Bath Shaving Hands and face washing Hair shampoo Hand dishwashing Automatic dishwasher Food preparation Wringer clothes washer Automatic clothes washer

Times Used during 1 Hour

Gallons Used in 1 Hour

         

12 9 2 4 4 4 14 5 26 32

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

Total Peak Hour Demand

Example 3 showers 1 shave 1 shampoo 1 hand dishwashing Peak Hour Demand

12 2 4 4

   

3 1 1 1

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

Adapted from information from the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

36 2 4 4 46

610

Construction Calculations Manual

Before selecting a storage water heater, you also want to consider the following: l l l

Fuel type and availability Energy efficiency Cost. If you haven’t yet considered what type of water heater might be best for your home, here are your options:

l l l l l

Conventional storage water heater Demand (tankless or instantaneous) water heater Heat pump water heaters Solar water heater Tankless coil and indirect water heaters

11.6.1 Calculating the Cost of a Demand, Storage, or Heat Pump Water Heater U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Savers Estimating a Storage, Demand, or Heat Pump Water Heater’s Costs When considering a water heater model for your home, estimate its annual operating cost. Then compare costs with other more and/or less energy-efficient models. This will help you determine the energy savings and payback period of investing in a more energy-efficient model, which will probably have a higher purchase price. Before you can choose and compare the costs of various models, you need to determine the correct size water heater for your home. If you haven’t done this already, see the following: l l

Sizing a Demand (Tankless or Instantaneous) Water Heater Sizing Storage and Heat Pump (with Tank) Water Heaters

Calculating Annual Operating Cost To estimate the annual operating cost of a storage, demand (tankless or instaneous), or heat pump (not geothermal heat pump) water heater, you need to know the following about the model: l l

Energy factor (EF) Fuel type and cost (your local utility can provide current rates) Then, use the following calculations:

For gas and oil water heaters You need to know the unit cost of fuel by Btu (British thermal unit) or therm. (1 therm ¼ 100,000 Btu) 365  41045/EF  Fuel Cost (Btu) ¼ estimated annual cost of operation OR 365  0.4105/EF  Fuel Cost (therm) ¼ estimated annual cost of operation Example: A natural gas water heater with an EF of .57 and a fuel cost of $0.00000619/Btu 365  41045/.57  $0.00000619 ¼ $163

For electric water heaters, including heat pump units You need to know or convert the unit cost of electricity by kilowatt-hour (kWh). 365  12.03/EF  Electricity Cost by kWh ¼ estimated annual cost of operation Example: A heat pump water heater with an EF of 2.0 and a electricity cost of $0.0842/kWh 365  12.03/2.0  $0.0842 ¼ $185

Section

11

611

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

Comparing Costs and Determining Payback Once you know the purchase and annual operating costs of the water heater models you want to compare, you can use the following table to determine the cost savings and payback of the more energy-efficient model(s). Models

Price of Water Heater

EF

Estimated Annual Operating Cost

Model A Model B (higher EF) Additional cost of more efficient model (Model B)

Price of Model B - Price of Model A ¼ $Additional Cost of Model B

Estimated annual operating cost savings (Model B)

Model B Annual Operating Cost - Model A Annual Operating Cost ¼ $Model B’s Cost Savings per Year

Payback period for Model B

$Additional Cost of Model B/$Model B’s Cost Savings per Year ¼ Payback period/years

Example Comparison of two gas water heaters with a local fuel cost of $0.60 per therm. Models

Price of Water Heater

EF

Estimated Annual Operating Cost

Model A

$165

0.54

$166

Model B

$210

0.58

$155

Additional cost of more efficient model (Model B)

$210 – $165 ¼ $45

Estimated annual operating cost savings (Model B)

$166 – $155 ¼ $11 per year

Payback period for Model B

$45/$11 per year ¼ 4.1 years

Other Costs If you want to include installation and maintenance costs, consult the manufacturer(s) and a qualified contractor to help estimate these costs. These costs will vary among system types and sometimes even from water heater model to model.

11.7.0 HVAC—Understanding and Calculating Relative Humidity Relative Humidity The amount of water vapor in the air at any given time is usually less than that required to saturate the air. The relative humidity is the percentage of saturation humidity, generally calculated in relation to saturated vapor density.

612

Construction Calculations Manual

Relative Humidity ¼

actual vapor density  100% saturation vapor density

The most common units for vapor density are gm/m3. For example, if the actual vapor density is 10 g/m3 at 20 C compared to the saturation vapor density at that temperature of 17.3 g/m3, then the relative humidity is R:H: ¼

10g=m3  100% ¼ 57:8% 17:3g=m3

Calculation

Careful! There are dangers and possible misconceptions in these common statements about relative humidity. Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air compared to what the air can “hold” at that temperature. When the air can’t “hold” all the moisture, then it condenses as dew.

What’s the Problem? Saturation vapor pressure

Dewpoint

Relative humidity calculation

11.7.1 HVAC—Understanding and Calculating Dewpoint Dewpoint

Example for 6 gm/m3 of actual humidity

Relative Humidity (%)

If the air is gradually cooled while maintaining the moisture content constant, the relative humidity will rise until it reaches 100%. This temperature, at which the moisture content in the air will saturate the air, is called the dew point. If the air is cooled further, some of the moisture will condense. Dewpoint

100 If the air is further cooled to 32°F, then 1:1 gm/m3 must condense out since air can hold only 4:9 gm/m3 at that temperature.

80 60 40

At 37°F this humidity will saturate the air. This 100% point is the dewpoint. Relative humidity rises as air cools.

At 86°F, this humidity gives 20% relative humidity

20 0 0

Relative humidity

10

20

30

40 50 60 Temperature °F

Saturation vapor pressure

70

80

90 °F

Calculation of dewpoint

11.7.2 Methods of Calculating Heating Efficiency—Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Methods for Calculating Efficiency CHP is an efficient and clean approach to generating power and thermal energy from a single fuel source. It is used either to replace or supplement conventional separate heat and power (SHP) (i.e., central station electricity available via the grid and an onsite boiler or heater). l l l l l

CHP System Efficiency Defined Key Terms Used in Calculating CHP Efficiency Calculating Total System Efficiency Calculating Effective Electric Efficiency Which CHP Efficiency Metric Should You Select?

Section

11

613

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

Basic Information l l l l l l

Catalog of CHP Technologies Biomass CHP Efficiency Benefits Reliability Benefits Environmental Benefits Economic Benefits

CHP System Efficiency Defined Every CHP application involves the recovery of otherwise wasted thermal energy to produce additional power or useful thermal energy. Because CHP is highly efficient, it reduces emissions of traditional air pollutants and carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas associated with global climate change. Efficiency is a prominent metric used to evaluate CHP performance and compare it to SHP. The illustration below illustrates the potential efficiency gains of CHP when compared to SHP.

Conventional Generation versus CHP: Overall Efficiency

Conventional Generation

Combined Heat & Power 5 MW Natural Gas Combustion Turbine

Power Station fuel 98 Units Fuel 154 Units Fuel 56 Units Fuel Boiler Fuel

30 Units Electricity

Power Plant EFFICIENCY: 31%

Combined Heat & Power CHP

EFFICIENCY: 80% Heat Boiler

OVERALL

49% EFFICIENCY

45 Units Steam

100 Units Fuel

Heat

75%

OVERALL EFFICIENCY

In this example of a typical CHP system, to produce 75 units of useful energy, the conventional generation or separate heat and power systems use 154 units of energy–98 for electricity production and 56 to produce heat— resulting in an overall efficiency of 49%. However, the CHP system needs only 100 units of energy to produce the 75 units of useful energy from a single fuel source, resulting in a total system efficiency of 75%. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Key Terms Used in Calculating CHP Efficiency Calculating a CHP system’s efficiency requires an understanding of several key terms, described as follows: l

CHP system. The CHP system includes the unit in which fuel is consumed (e.g., turbine, boiler, engine), the electric generator, and the heat recovery unit that transforms otherwise wasted heat to usable thermal energy.

614 l

Construction Calculations Manual

Total fuel energy input (QFUEL). The thermal energy associated with the total fuel input. Total fuel input is the sum of all the fuel used by the CHP system. The total fuel energy input is often determined by multiplying the quantity of fuel consumed by the heating value of the fuel. Commonly accepted heating values for natural gas, coal, and diesel fuel are:

l l l l

l

1020 Btu per cubic foot of natural gas 10,157 Btu per pound of coal 138,000 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel Net useful power output (WE). Net useful power output is the gross power produced by the electric generator minus any parasitic electric losses—in other words, the electrical power used to support the CHP system. (An example of a parasitic electric loss is the electricity that may be used to compress the natural gas before the gas can be fired in a turbine.) Net useful thermal output (SQTH). Net useful thermal output is equal to the gross useful thermal output of the CHP system minus the thermal input. An example of thermal input is the energy of the condensate return and makeup water fed to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Net useful thermal output represents the otherwise wasted thermal energy that was recovered by the CHP system.

Gross useful thermal output is the thermal output of a CHP system utilized by the host facility. The term utilized is important here. Any thermal output that is not used should not be considered. Consider, for example, a CHP system that produces 10,000 pounds of steam per hour, with 90% of the steam used for space heating and the remaining 10% exhausted in a cooling tower. The energy content of 9,000 pounds of steam per hour is the gross useful thermal output.

Calculating Total System Efficiency The most commonly used approach to determining a CHP system’s efficiency is to calculate total system efficiency. Also known as thermal efficiency, the total system efficiency (Zo) of a CHP system is the sum of the net useful power output (WE) and net useful thermal outputs (SQTH) divided by the total fuel input (QFUEL), as shown below: Zo ¼

WE þ SQTH QFUEL

The calculation of total system efficiency is a simple and useful method that evaluates what is produced (i.e., power and thermal output) compared to what is consumed (i.e., fuel). CHP systems with a relatively high net useful thermal output typically correspond to total system efficiencies in the range of 60 to 85%. Note that this metric does not differentiate between the value of the power output and the thermal output; instead, it treats power output and thermal output as additive properties with the same relative value. In reality and in practice, thermal output and power output are not interchangeable because they cannot be converted easily from one to another. However, typical CHP applications have coincident power and thermal demands that must be met. It is reasonable, therefore, to consider the values of power and thermal output from a CHP system to be equal in many situations.

Calculating Effective Electric Efficiency Effective electric efficiency calculations allow for a direct comparison of CHP to conventional power generation system performance (e.g., electricity produced from central stations, which is how the majority of electricity is produced in the United States). Effective electric efficiency (xEE) can be calculated using the equation below, where (WE) is the net useful power output, (SQTH) is the sum of the net useful thermal outputs, (QFUEL) is the

Section

11

615

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

total fuel input, and Z equals the efficiency of the conventional technology that otherwise would be used to produce the useful thermal energy output if the CHP system did not exist: eEE ¼

WE P QFUEL  ðQTH =aÞ

For example, if a CHP system is fired by natural gas and produces steam, then a represents the efficiency of a conventional natural gas-fired boiler. Typical a values for boilers are 0.8 for natural gas-fired boiler, 0.75 for a biomass-fired boiler, and 0.83 for a coal-fired boiler. The calculation of effective electric efficiency is essentially the CHP net electric output divided by the additional fuel the CHP system consumes over and above what conventional systems would have used to produce the thermal output for the site. In other words, this metric measures how effectively the CHP system generates power once the thermal demand of a site has been met. Typical effective electrical efficiencies for combustion turbine-based CHP systems are in the range of 51 to 69%. Typical effective electrical efficiencies for reciprocating engine-based CHP systems are in the range of 69 to 84%.

Which CHP Efficiency Metric Should You Select? The selection of an efficiency metric depends on the purpose of calculating CHP efficiency. l

l

If the objective is to compare CHP system energy efficiency to the efficiency of a site’s SHP options, then the total system efficiency metric may be the right choice. Calculation of SHP efficiency is a weighted average (based on a CHP system’s net useful power output and net useful thermal output) of the efficiencies of the SHP production components. The separate power production component is typically 33% efficient grid power. The separate heat production component is typically a 75 to 85% efficient boiler. If CHP electrical efficiency is needed for a comparison of CHP to conventional electricity production (i.e., the grid), then the effective electric efficiency metric may be the right choice. Effective electric efficiency accounts for the multiple outputs of CHP and allows for a direct comparison of CHP and conventional electricity production by crediting that portion of the CHP system’s fuel input allocated to thermal output.

Both the total system and effective electric efficiencies are valid metrics for evaluating CHP system efficiency. They both consider all the outputs of CHP systems and, when used properly, reflect the inherent advantages of CHP. However, since each metric measures a different performance characteristic, use of the two different metrics for a given CHP system produces different values. For example, consider a gas turbine CHP system that produces steam for space heating with the following characteristics:

Fuel Input (MMBtu/hr) Electric Output (MW) Thermal Output (MMBtu/hr)

41 3.0 17.7

Using the total system efficiency metric, the CHP system efficiency is 68% (3.0*3.413 þ 17.7)/41). Using the effective electric efficiency metric, the CHP system efficiency is 54% (3.0*3.413)/(41 – (17.7/0.8). This is not a unique example; a CHP system’s total system efficiency and effective electric efficiency often differ by 5 to 15%. NOTE: Many CHP systems are designed to meet a host site’s unique power and thermal demand characteristics. As a result, a truly accurate measure of a CHP system’s efficiency may require additional information and broader examination beyond what is described in this document.

616

Construction Calculations Manual

11.7.3 How Much Moisture Can the Air “Hold”? Careful! There are dangers and possible misconceptions in these common statements about relative humidity. Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air compared to what the air can “hold” at that temperature. When the air can’t “hold” all the moisture, then it condenses as dew. Of all the statements about relative humidity that I have heard in everyday conversation, the above is probably the most common. It may represent understanding of the phenomenon and has some common-sense utility, but it may represent a complete misunderstanding of what is going on physically. The air doesn’t “hold” water vapor in the sense of having some attractive force or capturing influence. Water molecules are actually lighter and higher speed than the nitrogen and oxygen molecules that make up the bulk of the air, and they certainly don’t stick to them and are not in any sense held by them. If you examine the thermal energy of molecules in the air at a room temperature of 20 C, you find that the average speed of a water molecule in the air is over 600 m/s or over 1400 miles/hr! You are not going to “hold” that molecule! Another possibly helpful perspective would be to consider the space between air molecules under normal atmospheric conditions. From knowledge of atomic masses and gas densities and the modeling of the mean free path of gas molecules, we can conclude that the separation between air molecules at atmospheric pressure and 20 C is about 10 times their diameter. They will typically travel on the order of 30 times that separation between collisions. So water molecules in the air have a lot of room to move about and are not “held” by the air molecules. By permission:hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu When one says that the air can “hold” a certain amount of water vapor, the fact that is being addressed is that a certain amount of water vapor can be resident in the air as a constituent of the air. The high-speed water molecules act, to a good approximation, as particles of an ideal gas. At an atmospheric pressure of 760 mm Hg, you can express the amount of water in the air in terms of a partial pressure in mm Hg that represents the vapor pressure contributed by the water molecules. For example, at 20 C, the saturation vapor pressure for water vapor is 17.54 mm Hg, so if the air is saturated with water vapor, the dominant atmospheric constituents nitrogen and oxygen are contributing most of the other 742 mm Hg of the atmospheric pressure. But water vapor is a very different type of air constituent than oxygen and nitrogen. Oxygen and nitrogen are always gases at Earth temperatures, having boiling points of 90K and 77K, respectively. Practically, they always act as ideal gases. But extraordinary water has a boiling point of 100 C ¼ 373.15K and can exist in solid, liquid, and gaseous phases on the Earth. It is essentially always in a process of dynamic exchange of molecules between these phases. In air at 20 C, if the vapor pressure has reached 17.54 mm Hg, then as many water molecules are entering the liquid phase as are escaping to the gas phase, so we say that the vapor is “saturated.” It has nothing to do with the air “holding” the molecules, but common usage often suggests that. As the air approaches saturation, we say that we are approaching the “dewpoint.” The water molecules are polar and will exhibit some net attractive force on each other and therefore begin to depart from ideal gas behavior. By collecting together and entering the liquid state, they can form droplets in the atmosphere to make clouds, or near the surface to form fog, or on surfaces to form dew. Another approach that might help clarify the point that air does not actually “hold” water is to note that the relative humidity really has nothing to do with the air molecules (i.e., N2 and O2). If a closed flask at 20 C had liquid water in it but no air at all, it would reach equilibrium at the saturated vapor pressure 17.54 mm Hg. At that point it would have a vapor density of 17.3 gm/m3 of pure water vapor in the gas phase above the water surface. But if you had just removed the air and sealed the container with liquid water in it, you might have a situation where there was only 8.65 gm/m3 resident in the gas phase at that particular moment. We would say that the relative humidity in the flask is 50% at that point because the resident water vapor density is half its saturation density. That is exactly the same thing we would say if the air were present—8.65 gm/m3 of water vapor in the air at 20 C represents 50% relative humidity. Under these conditions, water molecules would be evaporating from the surface into the gas phase faster than they would be entering the water surface, so the vapor pressure of the water vapor above the surface would be rising toward the saturation vapor pressure.

Section

11

617

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

11.7.4 General Heating Formulas—Energy Required to Heat, Offset Losses General heating formulas Energy required for heat up: M  c  Delta T ¼ kW hours=hours for heat up ¼ kW 3214 M ¼ Weight of Material in lbs. c ¼ Specific Heat of Material Delta T ¼ Desired temperature - starting temperature hrs ¼ heat up time expressed in hours Energy required to offset losses: LossesðWattsÞ=square ft  area ðsquare ftÞ ¼ kW required to offset losses 1000 Energy required to change state: Weightðlbs:Þ  latent heat of fusion ¼ kW 3412  heat up timeðin hrs :Þ

11.7.5 General Heating Formulas—Energy Required to Heat Air Flow Air heating formulas Energy required to heat air flow: (approx.) kW ¼

SCFM  ðT2  T1Þ F 2500

kW ¼ Energy (Kilowatts) required to heat flow SCFM ¼ Air flow rate in standard cubic feet per minute T2 ¼ Temperature at heater exit T1 ¼ Temperature at heater inlet 1.2 ¼ Efficiency factor (assumes 20% energy is lost)

11.7.6 Formula to Convert Actual CFM (ACFM) to Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (SCFM) Converting actual CFM (ACFM) to standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM): SCFM ¼ ACFM  ððPg þ PatmÞ=PatmÞ  ððTref þ 460Þ=ðTact þ 460ÞÞ SCFM ¼ Air flow in standard cubic feet per minute (corrected for temp. and pressure) ACFM ¼ Air flow in actual cubic feet per minute (uncorrected) Pg ¼ Gage pressure (psig) Patm ¼ Atmospheric pressure (14.7 psia) Tact ¼ Actual air temperature ( F) Tref ¼ Reference air temperature (70 F) Constants and conversion formulas: Density of Air at 32 F and 14.7 psia ¼ 1.293 kg/m3 (.081 lbs/ft3) Kilowatts  3412 ¼ BTU/hr

618

Construction Calculations Manual

Meters3/hour  35.3 ¼ ft3/hr Liters/min  2.12 ¼ ft3/hr CFH/60 ¼ CFM  C ¼ 5/9 ( F - 32)  F ¼ 9/5  C þ 32

11.8.0 Estimated Average Fuel Conversion Efficiency of Common Heating Appliances Estimated Average Fuel Conversion Efficiency of Common Heating Appliances Fuel Type—Heating Equipment

Efficiency (%)

Coal (bituminous) Central heating, hand-fired Central heating, stoker-fired Water heating, pot stove (50 gal.)

45.0 60.0 14.5

Oil High-efficiency central heating Typical central heating Water heater (50 gal.)

89.0 80.0 59.5

Gas High-efficiency central furnace Typical central boiler Minimum efficiency central furnace Room heater, unvented Room heater, vented Water heater (50 gal.)

97.0 85.0 78.0 99.0 65.0 62.0

Electricity Baseboard, resistance Central heating, forced air Central heating, heat pump Ground source heat pump Water heaters (50 gal.)

99.0 97.0 200þ 300þ 97.0

Wood and Pellets Franklin stoves Stoves with circulating fans Catalytic stoves Pellet stoves

30.0 - 40.0 40.0 - 70.0 65.0 - 75.0 85.0 - 90.0

Armed with these numbers, several “Evaluation Tools” above will allow you to calculate the cost of energy delivered to your home for different fuels and systems. The actual cost of fuels is best determined by examining your utility bills or contacting your utility and by contacting local suppliers of other fuels. The DOE’s Energy Information Administration also tracks some fuel prices.

Section

11

619

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

11.8.1 Reading Those Gas Meters Calculating Fuel Consumption and Carbon Footprint of the Glass Studio Calculating approximate fuel consumption and carbon output involves several things. With gas, it is necessary to isolate each piece of equipment, and, using a gas meter, clock the actual consumption of the unit, both in various phases of firing and as a total for the day or week. Those using natural gas are likely to have a gas meter for the studio. The older meters are of the multiple spinning dial variety where the consumption can be measured quickly on the dial clocking half a cubic foot, or perhaps 2 cubic feet.

CUBIC FEET 1/2 Foot

2 Feet

1 0 9 2 8 7 3 6 4 5 1,000,000 Feet

8 7

9 0 1 2 3 6 5 4

100,000 Feet

1 0 9 2 8 7 3 6 4 5

8 7

10,000 Feet

9 0 1 2 3 6 5 4

1000 Feet

Newer models look more like an odometer, and the numbers turn only after 100 cubic feet have passed through. This is cheaper for the gas company and easy for the meter reader, but it makes clocking the consumption of individual units tedious.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

11.9.0 Calculating Home Heating Energy—Gas versus Electric Resistance Heating Calculating Home Heating Energy Heat transfer from your home can occur by conduction, convection, and radiation. It is typically modeled in terms of conduction, although infiltration through walls and around windows can contribute a significant additional loss if they are not well sealed. Radiation loss can be minimized by using foil-backed insulation as a radiation barrier. The U.S. heating and air conditioning industry uses almost entirely the old British and U.S. common units for their calculations. For compatibility with the commonly encountered quantities, this example will be expressed in those units.

620

Thot

Construction Calculations Manual

Tcold

Heat loss rate ¼

Q t

Q ðAreaÞ  ðTinside  Toutside Þ ¼ t Thermal resistance of wall

If Q/t is in BTU/hr Area in ft2 Tin – Tout in  F then the thermal resistance is the “R-factor” quoted by insulation manufacturers. The units of the R-factor are ft2   F BTU=hr

For standard R11 wall insulation, you lose 1/11 BTU/hr per square foot of wall space, per degree Fahrenheit temperature difference. I. Calculate wall-loss rate in BTUs per hour. For a 10 ft by 10 ft room with an 8 ft ceiling, with all surfaces insulated to R19 as recommended by the U.S. Department of Energy, with inside temperature 68 F and outside temperature 28 F: Heat loss rate ¼

ð320 ft2 Þ  ð68 F  28 FÞ ¼ 674 BTU=hr ft2   F 19 BTU=hr

II. Calculate loss per day at these temperatures. By permission: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed Heat loss per day ¼ ð674 BTU=hrÞð24 hrÞ ¼ 16168 BTU Note that this is just the loss through the walls. The loss through the floor and ceiling is a separate calculation, and usually involves different R-values. III. Calculate loss per “degree day.” This is the loss per day with a one degree difference between inside and outside temperature. Loss per degree day ¼ Q ¼

ð320 ft2 Þ  ð1 FÞ BTU  24 hr=day ¼ 404 2  degree day ft  F 19 BTU=hr

If the conditions of case II prevailed all day, you would require 40 degree-days of heating, and therefore require 40 degree-days  404 BTU/degree-day ¼ 16168 BTU to keep the inside temperature constant. IV. Calculate heat loss for entire heating season. The typical heating requirement for an Atlanta heating season, September to May, is 2980 degree-days (a long-term average). Heat loss ¼ Q ¼ 404

BTU  2980 degree days ¼ 1:20 million BTU degree day

Section

11

621

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

The typical number of degree-days of heating or cooling for a given geographical location can usually be obtained from the weather service. V. Calculate heat loss per heating season for a typical uninsulated southern house in Atlanta. The range of loss rates given by DOE for uninsulated typical dwellings is 15,000 to 30,000 BTU/degree-day. Choosing 25,000 BTU/degree-day: Heat loss ¼ Q ¼ 25,000

BTU  2980 degree days ¼ 74:5 million BTU degree day

VI. Calculate annual heating cost. Assume natural gas cost of $12 per million BTU in a furnace operating at 70% efficiency.    74:5 million BTU $12 ¼ $1277 0:70 million BTU Assume electric resistance heating at 100% efficiency*, 9¢/kWh. ð7:45  107 BTUÞð2:93  104 kWh=BTUÞð$:09=kWhÞ ¼ $1965 Assume an electric heat pump with coefficient of performance ¼ 3 $1965 ¼ $655 3 When you are heating with natural gas, you are using the primary fuel at your house, and this is clearly preferable to using electric resistance heating, which is wasteful of the high-quality delivered electric energy. By using an electric heat pump, at least in the southern United States, you can get a coefficient of performance of about 3 and just about balance off that 3:1 loss in the generation process. In the above example, the electric heat pump is considerably cheaper, but that may be an artifact of the currently high natural gas prices. Over the last 25 years or so, natural gas and electric heat pump heating have stayed comparable in cost.

11.10.0 Comparing Fuel Costs of Heating and Cooling Systems—Gas, Electric, Kerosene, Wood, Pellets

*100% efficiency for using electricity in your house to produce heat is a common marketing ploy by electric utility companies. It is misleading because you have to burn about 3 units of primary fuel to deliver 1 unit of electric energy to the house because of the thermal bottleneck in electricity generation. So 100% efficient use at your house is about 33% efficient in the use of the primary fuel.

622

Construction Calculations Manual

Comparing Fuel Costs of Heating and Cooling Systems June 2003

Introduction One of the most common questions posed to energy specialists at Engineering Extension asks for a comparison between costs to operate different heating and cooling systems. It might be a comparison of a furnace to a heat pump, a regular furnace to a high-efficiency furnace, or a wood burning stove to a pellet stove. There are two components to cost: the initial cost to purchase and install the system, and the ongoing fuel cost. In general, higher efficiency equipment costs more initially but saves operating costs. To determine the purchase price, get bids from one or more contractors. Be certain bids include all costs to make the system fully functional, including duct work, thermostats, and chimneys. The accompanying fact sheets will help you compare the cost of fuel for several types of heating and cooling systems. Annual cost of delivering heating and cooling to a home depends on cost of the fuel, the efficiency with which the system converts the fuel source into heating or cooling energy, and the quantity of heating and cooling required. The following section, “Estimating the Cost of Heating or Cooling,” allows you to estimate the cost of one million Btus for several fuels and system types. However, if you want to compare annual estimated costs for two or more fuels, then you will also need to estimate the heating load of your home.

What Is the Price of Fuel? Fuel prices vary between suppliers, may change seasonally, and are affected by world events. To estimate fuel costs, you can either contact your local utility or supplier or you can use past billings. To estimate natural gas costs from your utility bill, divide the monthly charge by the consumption, usually measured in MCF (MCF ¼ 1000 Cubic feet). The cost should be between $3 and $12 per MCF. Use a winter bill so that meter charges are spread out over several units of gas. If your bill shows gas consumption in CCF (CCF ¼ 100 Cubic feet), you will need to multiply the gas cost by 10 to get it in dollars per MCF. To obtain an average $ per kilowatt hour (kWh), divide the total monthly cost by the consumption in kWh. Use a midwinter bill if you want to estimate heating costs and a midsummer bill if you want to estimate cooling costs. The cost for electricity in Kansas varies from $0.04 to $0.15 per kWh. Propane, fuel oil, wood, and pellets are sold in simple units and should be easy to determine.

Estimating the Cost of Heating or Cooling If you just want to compare operating costs of different systems, you can use Tables 1 through 7 to directly determine the cost of delivering one million Btus (MBTUs) of heating and Table 8 for one MBTU of cooling. For example, you could compare the cost of delivering one MBTU to your home from a high-efficiency natural gas furnace to the cost of delivering one MBTU from wood in a modern wood stove. There are several measures of system efficiency. A brief explanation is provided in the description of the tables. Table 1 is for natural gas furnaces and boilers. There are three efficiency levels, and gas prices range from $5 to $15 per thousand cubic feet (MCF). If your furnace was installed before about 1985, use the “older equipment” column. If you have a modern but normal-efficiency unit, use the 78% column. The last column is for high-efficiency (condensing) equipment. Tables 2 and 3 are similar to Table 1, but are for propane and fuel oil, respectively. Modern natural gas, propane, and fuel oil furnaces and boilers receive an annual fuel-utilization efficiency (AFUE) rating. Older units were not rated but an assumed performance of 65% is reasonable.

Section

11

623

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

TABLE 1 Natural Gas Heating Costs—$ per MBTU Delivered for Three Appliance Efficiencies Furnace or Boiler efficiency Gas Price $/MCF. $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $8.00 $8.50 $9.00 $9.50 $10.00 $10.50 $11.00 $11.50 $12.00 $12.50 $13.00 $13.50 $14.00 $14.50 $15.00

65% (low) Older Equipment

AFUE ¼ 78% (average) Current Minimum

AFUE ¼ 95% High Efficiency

$7.69 $8.46 $9.23 $10.00 $10.77 $11.54 $12.31 $13.08 $13.85 $14.62 $15.38 $16.15 $16.92 $17.69 $18.46 $19.23 $20.00 $20.77 $21.54 $22.31 $23.08

$6.41 $7.05 $7.69 $8.33 $8.97 $9.62 $10.26 $10.90 $11.54 $12.18 $12.82 $13.46 $14.10 $14.74 $15.38 $16.03 $16.67 $17.31 $17.95 $18.59 $19.23

$5.26 $5.79 $6.32 $6.84 $7.37 $7.89 $8.42 $8.95 $9.47 $10.00 $10.53 $11.05 $11.58 $12.11 $12.63 $13.16 $13.68 $14.21 $14.74 $15.26 $15.79

TABLE 2 Propane Heating Costs—$ per MBTU Delivered for Three Appliance Efficiencies Furnace or Boiler Efficiency Propane Price $/gal. $0.60 $0.65 $0.70 $0.75 $0.80 $0.85 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.15 $1.20 $1.25 $1.30

65% (low) Older Equipment

AFUE ¼ 78% (average) Current Minimum

AFUE ¼ 95% High Efficiency

$10.14 $10.99 $11.83 $12.68 $13.52 $14.37 $15.22 $16.06 $16.91 $17.75 $18.60 $19.44 $20.29 $21.13 $21.98

$8.24 $8.93 $9.62 $10.30 $10.99 $11.68 $12.36 $13.05 $13.74 $14.42 $15.11 $15.80 $16.48 $17.17 $17.86

$6.94 $7.52 $8.10 $8.68 $9.25 $9.83 $10.41 $10.99 $11.57 $12.15 $12.72 $13.30 $13.88 $14.46 $15.04 (Continued)

624

Construction Calculations Manual

TABLE 2 Propane Heating Costs—$ per MBTU Delivered for Three Appliance Efficiencies—Cont’d Furnace or Boiler Efficiency Propane Price $/gal. $1.35 $1.40 $1.45 $1.50 $1.55 $1.60

65% (low) Older Equipment

AFUE ¼ 78% (average) Current Minimum

AFUE ¼ 95% High Efficiency

$22.82 $23.67 $24.51 $25.36 $26.20 $27.05

$18.54 $19.23 $19.92 $20.60 $21.29 $21.98

$15.62 $16.19 $16.77 $17.35 $17.93 $18.51

TABLE 3 Fuel Oil Heating Costs — $ per MBTU Delivered for Three Appliance efficiencies Furnace or Boiler Efficiency Oil Price $/gallon $0.70 $0.75 $0.80 $0.85 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.15 $1.20 $1.25 $1.30 $1.35 $1.40 $1.45 $1.50 $1.55 $1.60 $1.65 $1.70

65% (low) Older Equipment

AFUE ¼ 78% (average) Current Minimum

AFUE ¼ 86% High Efficiency

$7.76 $8.32 $8.87 $9.43 $9.98 $10.54 $11.09 $11.65 $12.20 $12.76 $13.31 $13.87 $14.42 $14.97 $15.53 $16.08 $16.64 $17.19 $17.75 $18.30 $18.86

$6.47 $6.93 $7.39 $7.86 $8.32 $8.78 $9.24 $9.71 $10.17 $10.63 $11.09 $11.55 $12.02 $12.48 $12.94 $13.40 $13.87 $14.33 $14.79 $15.25 $15.71

$5.87 $6.29 $6.71 $7.13 $7.55 $7.96 $8.38 $8.80 $9.22 $9.64 $10.06 $10.48 $10.90 $11.32 $11.74 $12.16 $12.58 $12.99 $13.41 $13.83 $14.25

Table 4 is for electric heat. The price per MBTU for electric resistance heat includes both baseboard and central resistance heating systems. Sections for air-source heat pumps, groundwater heat pumps, and ground-loop heat pumps are provided, and each contains three performance levels. Air-source heat pumps are the most common heat pump. They have an inside blower and coil with an outside compressor and coil, and look like a conventional air conditioner. Use an air-source heat pump heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF) of 5 for older heat pumps, 6.8 for an average-performance unit, and 9.4 if you have or plan to buy a superior-performance unit.

Section

11

625

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

Ground-loop and groundwater are both geothermal heat pump systems. A ground-loop heat pump, Figure 1, circulates water through buried piping loop. Coefficient of performance (COP) is the measure of performance for geothermal heat pumps. A COP of 3.1 would be appropriate for an older or low-performance system; a COP of 3.5 is representative of average equipment sold today; and a system with a COP of 4.2 would represent superior performance. Unlike a ground-loop system that circulates water in a piping system, a groundwater heat pump, Figure 2, draws water from a well, extracts heat from the water in the winter or rejects heat to it in the summer, and then discharges the water, typically to another well. The heat pump is normally located inside, but there will be one or two wells associated with its operation. Groundwater heat pumps also use COP as a measure of performance, with a COP of 3.2 for an older or low-performance system, 4.1 for average performance, and 4.7 for superior performance. In many cases, the same equipment is used for both ground-loop and groundwater systems. They are rated with different COPs because of the differences between ground-loop and groundwater temperatures.

TABLE 4 Electric Heating Costs — $ per MBTU Delivered for Several Appliances and Performance Levels Air-source Heat Pump Performance Electricity Electric HSPF ¼ 5.0 $/kWh Resistance (low) Older Equipment $0.040 $0.045 $0.050 $0.055 $0.060 $0.065 $0.070 $0.075 $0.080 $0.085 $0.090 $0.095 $0.100 $0.105 $0.110 $0.115 $0.120 $0.125 $0.130 $0.135 $0.140

$11.73 $13.20 $14.66 $16.13 $17.60 $19.06 $20.53 $21.99 $23.46 $24.93 $26.39 $27.86 $29.33 $30.79 $32.26 $33.72 $35.19 $36.66 $38.12 $39.59 $41.06

$8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $11.00 $12.00 $13.00 $14.00 $15.00 $16.00 $17.00 $18.00 $19.00 $20.00 $21.00 $22.00 $23.00 $24.00 $25.00 $26.00 $27.00 $28.00

Ground-loop Heat Pump Performance

Groundwater Heat Pump Performance

HSPF ¼ HSPF ¼ COP COP ¼ COP ¼ COP COP ¼ COP ¼ 6.8 9.4 ¼ 3.1 3.5 4.2 ¼ 3.6 4.1 4.7 (average) (superior) (low) (average) (superior) (low) (average) (superior) Current Minimum $5.88 $6.62 $7.35 $8.09 $8.82 $9.56 $10.29 $11.03 $11.76 $12.50 $13.24 $13.97 $14.71 $15.44 $16.18 $16.91 $17.65 $18.38 $19.12 $19.85 $20.59

$4.26 $4.79 $5.32 $5.85 $6.38 $6.91 $7.45 $7.98 $8.51 $9.04 $9.57 $10.11 $10.64 $11.17 $11.70 $12.23 $12.77 $13.30 $13.83 $14.36 $14.89

$4.21 $4.74 $5.26 $5.79 $6.32 $6.84 $7.37 $7.89 $8.42 $8.95 $9.47 $10.00 $10.53 $11.05 $11.58 $12.11 $12.63 $13.16 $13.68 $14.21 $14.74

$3.74 $4.21 $4.67 $5.14 $5.61 $6.07 $6.54 $7.01 $7.48 $7.94 $8.41 $8.88 $9.35 $9.81 $10.28 $10.75 $11.21 $11.68 $12.15 $12.62 $13.08

$3.11 $3.49 $3.88 $4.27 $4.66 $5.05 $5.43 $5.82 $6.21 $6.60 $6.99 $7.38 $7.76 $8.15 $8.54 $8.93 $9.32 $9.70 $10.09 $10.48 $10.87

$3.54 $3.98 $4.42 $4.87 $5.31 $5.75 $6.19 $6.64 $7.08 $7.52 $7.96 $8.41 $8.85 $9.29 $9.73 $10.18 $10.62 $11.06 $11.50 $11.95 $12.39

$3.10 $3.49 $3.88 $4.26 $4.65 $5.04 $5.43 $5.81 $6.20 $6.59 $6.98 $7.36 $7.75 $8.14 $8.53 $8.91 $9.30 $9.69 $10.08 $10.47 $10.85

$2.70 $3.04 $3.38 $3.72 $4.05 $4.39 $4.73 $5.07 $5.41 $5.74 $6.08 $6.42 $6.76 $7.09 $7.43 $7.77 $8.11 $8.45 $8.78 $9.12 $9.46

626

Construction Calculations Manual

Supply Well

Return Well

Heat Pump

FIGURE 1 Groundwater heat pump.

Horizontal Ground Loop Heat Pump

FIGURE 2 Groundwater heat pump.

Table 5 is used to estimate the cost per MBTU for unvented kerosene heaters. They are 100% efficient because all of the heat is delivered to the home. If you are using a vented kerosene appliance, use Table 3. TABLE 5 Kerosene Heating Costs—$ per Million MBTU Delivered Unvented Kerosene Heater Kerosene Price $/Gallon $1.00 $1.10 $1.20 $1.30 $1.40 $1.50

Unvented Equipment $7.56 $8.31 $9.07 $9.83 $10.58 $11.34

Section

11

627

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

Unvented Kerosene Heater Kerosene Price $/Gallon $1.60 $1.70 $1.80 $1.90 $2.00 $2.10 $2.20 $2.30 $2.40 $2.50 $2.60 $2.70 $2.80 $2.90 $3.00

Unvented Equipment $12.09 $12.85 $13.61 $14.36 $15.12 $15.87 $16.63 $17.38 $18.14 $18.90 $19.65 $20.41 $21.16 $21.92 $22.68

Estimate the cost of delivered heating energy Example: Compare the cost of heat from a propane furnace to the cost of heat from an air-source heat pump. First, you will need to know the cost of both fuels and efficiencies of the systems. Follow this example to learn how to use Tables 1 through 8. Table 2 is for propane appliances. Assuming you have an old propane furnace, the efficiency will be about 65%. If you pay $0.90 per gallon for propane, the cost per million Btus (MBTUs) will be $15.22. Table 4 is for electric appliances. Compare this to the cost of heating with an average-efficiency, air-source heat pump with electricity costing $0.07 per kilowatt hour (kWh). The cost per MBTU will be about $10.29. Delivered heat from the heat pump costs about two-thirds that of propane.

Table 6 will allow you to estimate the cost per MBTU for several wood heating appliances. The species of wood, cost per cord, and appliance efficiency are all important to getting an accurate estimate. The efficiency ratings provided are typical but may vary between manufacturers. Several common wood species are listed, with cord costs ranging from $80 to $140. There are sections of the table for open fireplaces; pre-1980 wood stoves; masonry heaters; and post-1980, EPA-certified wood stoves. For more details on solid-fuel heating appliances, obtain a copy of Solid-Fuel Heating Appliances online at www.engext.ksu.edu/. Look under publications. Table 7 provides heating cost estimates for pellet- and corn-burning appliances. Table 8 will estimate the cost of providing one MBTU of cooling for air conditioners and heat pumps. A seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) is the performance measure for modern air conditioners and air-source heat pumps. Older units may not be rated, and a SEER of 7 is reasonable for estimating operating costs.

Estimating Annual Costs Once you have determined the cost per MBTU for any fuel, you can estimate annual heating or cooling costs. It is important to remember these are estimates only; lifestyle, actual housing conditions, house configuration, and other factors can greatly influence heating and cooling costs.

628

Construction Calculations Manual

TABLE 6 Wood Heating Costs—$per Million BTU for Several Wood Heating Appliance Efficiency 10%—typical open fireplace Price per cord

50%—typical central boiler, furnace, or pre-1980 wood stove

$80

$100

$120

$140

$80

$100

$120

$140

$50.63 $40.00 $37.74 $29.96 $42.11 $32.52 $24.32

$63.29 $50.00 $47.17 $37.45 $52.63 $40.65 $30.40

$75.95 $60.00 $56.60 $44.94 $63.16 $48.78 $36.47

$88.61 $70.00 $66.04 $52.43 $73.68 $56.91 $42.55

$10.13 $8.00 $7.55 $5.99 $8.42 $6.50 $4.86

$12.66 $10.00 $9.43 $7.49 $10.53 $8.13 $6.08

$15.19 $12.00 $11.32 $8.99 $12.63 $9.76 $7.29

$17.72 $14.00 $13.21 $10.49 $14.74 $11.38 $8.51

Species Cottonwood Elm, American Hackberry Honeylocust Maple, Silver Oak, Red Osage Orange

Price per cord

60% — typical masonry heater

70% — typical EPA-certified wood stoves and inserts

$80

$100

$120

$140

$80

$100

$120

$140

$10.55 $8.33 $7.86 $6.24 $8.77 $6.78 $5.07

$12.66 $10.00 $9.43 $7.49 $10.53 $8.13 $6.08

$14.77 $11.67 $11.01 $8.74 $12.28 $9.49 $7.09

$7.23 $5.71 $5.39 $4.28 $6.02 $4.65 $3.47

$9.04 $7.14 $6.74 $5.35 $7.52 $5.81 $4.34

$10.85 $8.57 $8.09 $6.42 $9.02 $6.97 $5.21

$12.66 $10.00 $9.43 $7.49 $10.53 $8.13 $6.08

Species Cottonwood Elm, American Hackberry Honeylocust Maple, Silver Oak, Red Osage Orange

$8.44 $6.67 $6.29 $4.99 $7.02 $5.42 $4.05

Wood Species, Heating Appliance Efficiencies, and Cord Wood Costs

TABLE 7 Pellet and Corn Hating Costs — $ per MBTU Pellet price Price per 40-pound Bag $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00

Typical Pellet Stove Price per Ton $125 $150 $175 $200

$9.77 $11.73 $13.68 $15.63

Corn Price Price per Bushel $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00

Typical Corn Stove $5.05 $8.42 $11.78 $15.15

Table 91 provides estimates of heating and cooling requirements of homes in Kansas. Three levels of home efficiency are listed. Standard practice represents homes as they have generally been constructed in Kansas, energy code-compliant applies to a home that would meet modern energy codes, and energy efficient represents homes where high performance was a major design goal. There are also three climate areas listed. Based on the type of home and location, choose the appropriate index. Multiply it by the size of your home (square feet of living space) and the cost of your fuel in $ per MBTU, then divide by 1000 to estimate annual costs. If you live in an older, poorly insulated and weatherized home, your heating costs will be higher than those estimated by this method. To estimate savings for using higher performance equipment or other fuels, calculate the costs for each and compare. 1. Ground-Source Heat Pumps, An Efficient Choice for Residential and Commercial Use, J. Mark Hannifan, Joe E King, AIA, 1995.

Section

11

629

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

TABLE 8 Electric Cooling Costs—$ per MBTU Cooling for Several Appliances and Performance Levels Air Conditioner or Air-source Heat Pump Performance Electricity $/kWh $0.040 $0.045 $0.050 $0.055 $0.060 $0.065 $0.070 $0.075 $0.080 $0.085 $0.090 $0.095 $0.100 $0.105 $0.110 $0.115 $0.120 $0.125 $0.130 $0.135 $0.140

SEER ¼ 7 (low) Older Equipment

SEER ¼ 12 (average)

$5.71 $6.43 $7.14 $7.86 $8.57 $9.29 $10.00 $10.71 $11.43 $12.14 $12.86 $13.57 $14.29 $15.00 $15.71 $16.43 $17.14 $17.86 $18.57 $19.29 $20.00

$4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $8.00 $8.50 $9.00 $9.50 $10.00 $10.50 $11.00 $11.50 $12.00 $12.50 $13.00 $13.50 $14.00

Groundwater Heat Pump Performance

SEER ¼ 15 EER ¼ 16 (superior) (low) $2.67 $3.00 $3.33 $3.67 $4.00 $4.33 $4.67 $5.00 $5.33 $5.67 $6.00 $6.33 $6.67 $7.00 $7.33 $7.67 $8.00 $8.33 $8.67 $9.00 $9.33

$2.61 $2.93 $3.26 $3.58 $3.91 $4.23 $4.56 $4.89 $5.21 $5.54 $5.86 $6.19 $6.51 $6.84 $7.17 $7.49 $7.82 $8.14 $8.47 $8.79 $9.12

Ground-loop Heat Pump Performance

EER ¼ 19 EER ¼ 24 EER ¼ 13 (average) (superior) (low) $2.22 $2.50 $2.78 $3.06 $3.33 $3.61 $3.89 $4.17 $4.44 $4.72 $5.00 $5.28 $5.56 $5.83 $6.11 $6.39 $6.67 $6.94 $7.22 $7.50 $7.78

$1.78 $2.00 $2.22 $2.44 $2.67 $2.89 $3.11 $3.33 $3.56 $3.78 $4.00 $4.22 $4.44 $4.67 $4.89 $5.11 $5.33 $5.56 $5.78 $6.00 $6.22

EER ¼ 16 EER ¼ 20 (average) (superior)

$3.18 $3.58 $3.98 $4.38 $4.78 $5.18 $5.57 $5.97 $6.37 $6.77 $7.17 $7.56 $7.96 $8.36 $8.76 $9.16 $9.55 $9.95 $10.35 $10.75 $11.15

$2.62 $2.95 $3.28 $3.61 $3.94 $4.27 $4.59 $4.92 $5.25 $5.58 $5.91 $6.23 $6.56 $6.89 $7.22 $7.55 $7.87 $8.20 $8.53 $8.86 $9.19

$2.13 $2.39 $2.66 $2.92 $3.19 $3.46 $3.72 $3.99 $4.25 $4.52 $4.78 $5.05 $5.32 $5.58 $5.85 $6.11 $6.38 $6.65 $6.91 $7.18 $7.44

TABLE 9 Annual Heat and Cooling Indices—1000 Btus/square foot Heating

Cooling

Northwest

Central

Southeast

Northwest

Central

Southeast

50 36 28

45 32 25

40 29 23

11 10 9

13 11 10

14 12 11

Current practice Energy code compliant Energy efficient

This material was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Grant No. DE-FG48- 97R802102. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DOE.

Estimating Annual Costs Example: Estimate the annual cost of heating a 2000-square-foot home in rural Sedgwick County. The home was built in the 1960s. The home owner is considering both propane and an air-source heat pump. Fuel costs were determined in the previous example to be $15.22/MBTU for propane and $10.29/MBTU for a heat pump.

630

Construction Calculations Manual

The heating index for the home would be 45. Annual heating costs would be 2,000  45  15:22 ¼ $1,370 for propane, and 1,000 2,000  45  10:29 ¼ $925 for the heat pump: 1,000

11.11.0 Residential Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) Savings versus Electric, Gas, and Fuel Oil Residential GSHP Annual Savings Mean Annual Savings (%) Conventional System

Number

Energy

Number

Dollars

21 33 17 6 7

57% 31% 67% 71% 46%

18 21 21 9 7

54% 31% 18% 33% 39%

a

Electric Resistance Heat/AC Air-Source Heat Pump Natural Gas Furnace/ACb Oil Furnace/ACb Other (propane, unspecified) a.

AC means with electric air conditioning. Natural gas or oil furnaces with electric air conditioning had annual operating costs less than GSHP systems for 23% of the case studies. The mean annual dollar savings of GSHPs shown above may appear attractive; however, due to the relatively low-annual operating costs of conventional energy systems, it is difficult in many cases to recover the additional incremental cost (ground loop) of GSHP systems. Residential GSHP system peak demand reduction compared to single-zone electric resistance heating for 13 case studies ranged from 5.3 kW to 10.4 kW with a mean of 7.2 kW. b.

School Ground-Source Heat Pumps The potential for savings of GSHP systems in schools is documented in 26 case studies, which include 54% vertical ground-coupled, 19% groundwater, 12% horizontal ground-coupled, and 15% other types of systems. School GSHP Annual Savings Mean Annual Savings (%) Conventional System

Number

Energy

Number

Dollars

Electric Resistance Heat Natural Gas Fuel Oil

2 3 1

51% 61% 76%

3 1 1

45% 13% 58%

Source: Study conducted by U.S. Department of Energy via Grant C92-12025-001.

Section

11

631

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

11.11.1 Paybacks for Residential GSHP Economics Residential GSHP Economics Simple Payback (yrs) Conventional System Electric Resistance Heat/AC Air-Source Heat Pump Natural Gas/AC Fuel Oil/AC Other

Number

Range

Mean

4 3 9 6 5

2.7 to 6.8 2.0 to 9.5 4.2 to 24.1 1.4 to 7.1 2.0 to 6.8

4.4 5.9 11.6 4.4 4.3

The biggest barrier to faster paybacks of GSHP systems is the incremental cost of the ground loop. Since residential GSHP systems are usually included in the mortgage, a break-even value of electric rates is a more meaningful value than simple payback. In January 1995, data became available on the cost of purchasing and installing residential GSHP systems. Based on this data, an earlier analysis of a new well-insulated home, and a 30-year fixed rate mortgage at 8%, the electrical break-even rates were calculated for two different climate zones. In the colder zone, the break-even rates were $0.061/kWh for vertical and $0.058/kWh for horizontal ground-coupled systems. In the warmer zones, they were $0.097 and $0.084, respectively. Electric rates in excess of these break-even values would result in the GSHP system having a positive cash flow to the homeowner. Simple paybacks for school systems were reported in only 5 out of 23 case studies. These simple paybacks ranged from 5 to 14 years for electric resistance heating, 3.5 years for natural gas systems, and 5 to 7 years for others. Case studies for commercial buildings reported simple paybacks for 17 out of 46 GSHP systems. The range of simple paybacks was 1.3 to 4.7 years, with a mean of 2.8 years. For commercial buildings, all but four of the simple paybacks represent buildings located in northern climates. Caution should be used in arriving at economic conclusions for any of the three groups presented in this summary. This is due to variables of climate, ground characteristics, GSHP system type, equipment efficiency, sizing, complex utility rate structures, and a variety of economic analysis methods used in the case studies. Benefits reported for using GSHP systems in schools are: addition of mechanical cooling, improved control, and simplicity of maintenance and repair. In southern climates, the benefits include: elimination of cooling towers, outdoor equipment, mechanical rooms, and ductwork.

11.11.2 Commercial Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) Savings versus Electric, Gas, Fuel Oil Case studies (46) documented for commercial GSHP systems ranged in capacity from 30 to 4700 tons. These systems employed vertical ground-coupled (43%), groundwater (35%), horizontal ground-coupled (11%), and other (11%) types of ground systems. Commercial GSHP systems were monitored in 84% of the case studies, and conventional energy systems represent only 20% of the comparisons. The average annual energy savings of GSHP systems ranged from 40 to 72%, and dollar savings ranged from 31 to 56%.

632

Construction Calculations Manual

11.11.3 Paybacks for Commercial GSHP Economics Mean Annual Savings (%) Conventional System Electric Resistance Heat/AC Air-Source Heat Pump Natural Gas Fuel Oil

Number

Energy

Number

Dollars

6 3 4 6

59% 40% 69% 72%

5 3 4 7

56% 37% 49% 31%

The savings attributable to the use of GSHP systems in commercial buildings vary over a wide range. In addition to parameters common to all GSHP applications, unique to commercial buildings are building use, internal heat gains, and more complex rate structures. Predictions of savings to be achieved with a GSHP system are a very site-specific endeavor for commercial buildings.

Economics The economics of residential GSHP were reported as simple paybacks in only 15% of the 184 case studies. A favorable simple payback is considered to be less than 5 years. Residential GSHP system simple paybacks ranged from 1.4 to 24.1 years, and the mean was 7.0 years. Commercial GSHP Economics Conventional System

Number

Range Years

Mean Years

Electric Resistance Heat Natural Gas Fuel Oil Other

5 3 7 2

1.3 - 3.0 1.9 - 4.7 2.2 - 4.5 2.5 - 2.7

2.3 3.4 2.5

When considering a GSHP system for either new or retrofit situations, it is imperative that a deliberate economic analysis be performed.

Utility Programs Ground-source heat pumps (GSHPs) are one of many technologies utilities are considering or implementing for demand-side management (DSM), especially aimed at improving the efficiency with which customers use electricity. Information was developed on the status of DSM programs for GSHPs including: utility/contacts, marketing, barriers to market entry, incentives, number of units installed in service areas, and benefits. A total of 57 utilities and rural electric cooperatives out of 178 investigated were reported to have DSM programs involving GSHPs. Marketing techniques employed by utilities included utility publications and seminars (36%), newspaper and radio/TV advertising (16%), test/demonstrations (10%), education (6%), home shows (6%), and other (26%). The primary market penetration barrier cited by utilities was the first cost of installation of GSHP systems, especially the incremental cost (median cost of $700 to $900/ton of the ground loop). Other barriers include

Section

11

Plumbing and HVAC Calculations

633

low-annual cost of natural gas, lack of manufacturers, dealers and loop installers, customer resistance to heat pump technology, and regulatory problems. Utilities have designed a number of incentive packages to encourage the installation of GSHPs. The most common are cash rebates to customers (mean values of $208/ton and $382/unit) and trade ally ($200/ton). In many cases, the utility specifies a minimum Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER), usually 10 or greater, energy audits, or minimum insulation standards. Other types of incentives include special financing, discounted energy rates, and free ground loop installation. More than 18,800 GSHP systems (3-ton equivalent) were reported by 35 utilities out of the 57 contacted. The types of systems installed include: horizontal ground-coupled (46%), undefined systems (40%), groundwater systems (7%), and vertical ground-coupled (7%).