1 / 22

Hilton Central School District Go Green Committee

Hilton Central School District Go Green Committee. Hilton Central School District Go Green Committee November 8, 2011. Go Green Committee Members. Nicole Allen-Hickey Al Alton Michelle Ames Steve Ayers, Facilitator Greg Booth Gary Buchholz Jodi Burns Lisa Camillaci

breena
Download Presentation

Hilton Central School District Go Green Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Hilton Central School DistrictGo Green Committee Hilton Central School DistrictGo Green Committee November 8, 2011

  2. Go Green Committee Members • Nicole Allen-Hickey • Al Alton • Michelle Ames • Steve Ayers, Facilitator • Greg Booth • Gary Buchholz • Jodi Burns • Lisa Camillaci • Michelle Civiletti • HerveDauvergne • Don Faso • Adam Geist • Mike Lage • Brandon McAuliff • Adam Norton • Tom Oaks • Bob Pelkey • Jeri Pickett • Dave Preston • Bob Prorok • Steve Randall • Larry Schuth • Mike Short • Jim Smith • Larry Speer • Karen Spillman • Karen Velyk • Greg Wahl • Sarah Warmbrodt • Sarah Welch • David Woodward

  3. Go Green Goal The Hilton Central School District is committed to reducing commercial energy consumption and associated overall emissions by 50% by the 2015-2016 school year. This will be accomplished through the use of alternative energy sources and conservation, and the results will be independently verified. The benefit to our community will be a cleaner environment and a reduction in the operational costs of the school district, while providing a valuable learning experience for our students.

  4. Baseline Data

  5. Alternative Energy Options Reviewed • Wind Turbines • Solar Energy • Geothermal Heating/Cooling • Hydrogen Fuel Cell

  6. Wind Turbines – Description • 1 or more 900kw towers (approximately 330+ feet high) • Each tower would be expected to generate 2mw of electricity annually • Electricity generated would be metered up to the utility grid and credited against our accounts

  7. Wind Turbines – Campus Applications • Northwood and Village campuses have best locations for distances from school and residential areas • Preliminary feasibility study was positive – a full feasibility study at a cost of $65,000 to cover both potential campus locations is recommended

  8. Wind Turbines – Pros and Cons • Pros • Clean, renewable energy • Insulates District from price fluctuations • Long useful life of investment • Significant contribution towards meeting goals of reduced commercial energy usage and carbon footprint reduction • Able to extend energy produced to all campuses • Cons • Significant upfront cost (about $2.5 million) to install turbine • Size may generate adverse public reaction • Could have adverse impact on Hilton Municipal Electric program • SED has not determined if wind turbines will be eligible for building aid

  9. Solar Energy – Description • Solar arrays that are ballasted to the roof • Produce electricity, as well as enable hydronic heating for hot water supplies • Does not require cloud free skies to work, but do produce greater output under sunny skies

  10. Solar Energy – Campus Applications • Rooftop array is best suited for installation concurrently with a new roof. • Village Elementary and Quest were identified as in need of new roofs in the Building Condition Survey

  11. Solar Energy – Pros and Cons • Clean, renewable energy source • Reduces use of commercially produced electricity and production of greenhouse gasses • Could be effective in a small application to support returning to cafeteria trays • Prone to diminished effectiveness during periods of cloud cover, or when receptors are covered with snow • High cost and frequency of maintenance • Possible issues with load bearing capacities of roofs

  12. Geothermal – Description • Water is circulated through a closed-loop system to exchange energy with the earth • A heat pump is used to circulate the temperate air, reducing the amount of heating/cooling required to maintain comfortable interior temperatures

  13. Geothermal – Campus Applications • Retrofitting a building requires installation of underground pipes, installation of heat pump, and replacement of interior heating/cooling distribution system • Most cost-effective when done in conjunction with a boiler replacement and when air conditioning is desired • The High School is most likely to require a boiler replacement, and has a suitable surrounding campus for underground piping, with Merton Williams, Quest and Northwood also having some potential applications

  14. Hydrogen Fuel Cell - Description • Electricity is generated using a hydrogen fuel rod • Generated electricity is used by the facility, with commercial electricity supplementing in periods of peak demand

  15. Hydrogen Fuel Cell – Pros and Cons • Clean, renewable energy source • Reduces use of commercially produced electricity and production of greenhouse gasses • High cost of installation • Very short (5 – 7 year) life of fuel rod, with high ($500,000) replacement cost • Significant annual maintenance costs and time, including annual 1-2 week shutdown

  16. Alternative Energy Evaluation Criteria • Compatibility with Infrastructure Needs • Contribution to Meeting Commercially Produced Energy Consumption Reduction Goal • Contribution to Meeting Carbon Footprint Reduction Goal • Reliability • Maintenance and Staffing Requirements • Likelihood of Community Acceptance • Potential for Environmental Impact Issues • Educational Value • Net Cost of Ownership (Acquisition Cost Plus Operating Costs Plus Decommissioning Costs minus Energy Cost Savings and Salvage/Trade-in Value)

  17. Go Green Recommendations

  18. Go Green Recommendations, cont.

  19. Go Green Recommendations, cont.

  20. Go Green Recommendations, cont.

  21. Go Green Recommendation - Summary *Weighting double counts scores in commercial energy reduction, expected reliability, maintenance and staffing requirements, and net cost of ownership. Maximum possible rating is 65.0

  22. Next Steps • Board authorization of wind energy feasibility study • Forwarding of recommendations to Project Planning Team for more detailed examination of feasibility for next capital project • Committee to reconvene in January 2012 to determine next steps in meeting long-term goals

More Related