HP210, Feasibility Study of Energy Options for Clarkson University

1. HP210, Feasibility Study of Energy Options for Clarkson University Honors Program Sophomore-Level Contemporary Problem Course The presentation is on the Web at http://www.clarkson.edu/~gravande/HP210

2. Course Objectives • To facilitate students’ learning about energy issues faced by both Clarkson and society • To produce recommendations about energy options that will be useful to Clarkson decision makers

3. Problem Definition • Examine Clarkson’s total energy situation • Both utilization and production aspects • Special focus on alternative energy production technologies • Determine the feasibility of implementing selected energy production technologies and utilization reduction strategies

4. Issues Examined • Wind Energy • Solar Energy • Geothermal Energy • Hydro Energy • Co-Generation / Load Leveling

5. Final Results • Mixed findings re feasibility for Clarkson • Nevertheless, recommendations to proceed with some options • Implementation for some instances • Further study for others • Tremendous student learning about energy issues

6. Wind Energy Team

7. Pros Clean, sustainable energy source Power diversification Minimal environmental impact Locally built and operated Cons High initial cost Intermittent power Visual impact Payback period Why Wind Energy?

8. Why Wind Energy at Clarkson? Quantitative • Mean wind speed (at 213 ft): 12.8 mph Qualitative • Guards against price fluctuations • Sends a message of progressivism • Increases Clarkson’s profile • Educational and recruiting value

9. Issues • Economic • Legal • Technical • Case Studies • Public Opinion

10. Is Wind Energy Viable at Clarkson? ?

11. Turbines • NW19 • 0.5% ofClarkson’s total • electrical needs • N54 • 6.1% ofClarkson’s total • electrical needs • V47 • 4.9% of • Clarkson’s total • electrical needs • V80 • 15.8% ofClarkson’s total • electrical needs

12. Recommendation:Vestas V47 660kW Turbine • Yearly Energy Production: 4.9% of electrical needs • Base Cost: $660,000 • Yearly Maint. Cost ($0.015/kWh): $17,109 (est.) • Yearly Income ($0.07/kWh): $79,844 (est.) • 20 year lifetime (maybe?): • Net Present Value (5%): $121,818 • Real rate of return: 7.09% • Present value electricity cost: $0.0614/kWh

13. Conclusions • Wind energy is viable • Recommend a Vestas V47 660kW Turbine • No known legal restrictions • 70% of students support placing a wind turbine on campus

14. Solar Energy Team • Group Members: • Adam Allan • Kiran MacCormick • Warren Diefendorf • Wes Turner • Jacob Horn • Sean Lebel • Chris Cormier • Nick Guertin

15. Purpose • To provide Clarkson University with a comprehensive solution to high energy costs by investigating the feasibility of these options: • Natural Lighting • Solar Air/Water Heating • Photovoltaic Cells

16. NaturalLighting • By implementing natural lighting, energy costs can be reduced. • Lowers the need for electric lighting • During the winter months, sunlight will help to heat the building • During the summer months, an overhang can prevent direct sunlight from entering a building, thereby reducing the cooling loads • We investigated the use of natural lighting in the current ERC. • Using professional consultants (Global Resource Options, LLP) • Recommendations • Consider building an awning on the ERC • Consider changing window design

17. Solar Water Heating • Through the use of solar water heating, energy costs can be further reduced. • Solar energy would be used to preheat water • This system can be used in conjunction with a previously installed system • We evaluated the feasibility of these systems by contacting GRO. • For use in Graham Hall • Recommendations • Pursue external funding

18. Solar Water Heating

19. Photovoltaic Cells • By using PV cells, Clarkson’s energy dependence can be reduced. • Clarkson currently relies on Niagara-Mohawk for electricity • During midday, when peak electrical loads have been proven to be at their highest, PV cells will simultaneously be providing their maximum electrical output. • Potential for selling power to the grid to recover initial investment • We contacted GRO concerning installing an array for the ERC • Recommendations • A large system is not economically feasible • A small system may be educationally beneficial

20. Photovoltaic Cells

21. Conclusion • In order to reduce the energy dependence of Clarkson University, we recommend that the university take these steps: • Consider building an awning on the ERC • Consider changing window design in ERC • Pursue funding options for a solar water heating system to use in Graham Hall

22. Thank You • Dr. Jerry Gravander • Dr. Eric Thacher • Doc Bagley • The engineers at GRO

23. Geothermal Energy

24. Library Expansion • Current proposed library plan - expand from 50,000 to 75,000 net sq. feet • Retrofit situation • Allows more space for library usage • Creates a more comfortable environment • Environmental benefits • Economic Advantages

25. Economics of Conventional System • Total Implementation Costs = $136,000 • 3 new heaters @ $37,000 each • 1 new supplementary chiller @ $25,000 • New chiller just purchased – only supplementary needed • Annual Running Costs = $67,802 • Heating - $62,338per year • Cooling - $5,464 per year

26. Economics of Geothermal System • Total Implementation Cost = $299,520 • 154 tons of heat • 58 boreholes • Annual Running Cost = $56,722 • Dependant only on electricity • $11,000 less than conventional system per year • Payback period = 15 years • Part of the conventional system already installed • Reduced with NYSERDA rebates

27. Cumulative Money Spent Over 50 Years

28. Cumulative Money Saved Over 50 Years

29. NYSERDA • New Construction Programs • Up to 80% cash back program • $mart Equipment Choice Program • Geothermal Incentive • $500/ton • New York Equipment $mart Loan • 4.5% buy down

30. Environmental andSocietal Aspects • Elimination of CO2 emissions with green electricity; 40% reduction with grid electricity • Clarkson’s environmental reputation • Much safer • Diminishes air stratification • Reduces noise pollution • Uses less space • Aesthetically pleasing • NIMBY not an issue

31. Disadvantages • High installation cost • Others easily avoided by hiring an experienced contractor • Disruption of heat gradient • Campus disruption

32. Recommendation • Implementation of geothermal energy in the proposed library expansion • Environmental and societal benefits • Payback period of 15 years • Saves more than $500,000 over 50 years

33. Hydroelectric Power Team Kristin Beattie Jerry Boyle Kyle Burdick Elizabeth Gorevski Diana Matcovich Randy Smith Dominick Werther

34. Hydropower

35. Hydropower in Potsdam • Raquette River- Run of the river • Electricity generated is determined by: • Head • Flow rate

36. Existing Hydro Plant • Built 1972, renovated in 1983 • Two 400 kW hydroelectric turbine generators • Inefficiencies: • Incorrect spillway design • Lacks automated flow monitor, relies on manual adjustment

37. Implementing Hydropower for Clarkson • Buy power directly from existing plant • Renovate existing village plant • Build new plant in Potsdam on Raquette River’s west channel

38. Transmitting Power to Campus Two Options: • Use Niagara Mohawk’s power lines • More costly than current costs • Transfer power by other means • Against the law to construct own lines on public property • Charge batteries • Compress air or water

39. Feasibility • Transmission costs/impossibilities make hydropower infeasible for Clarkson • Shifted attention to making best use of Raquette River

40. Build New Plant Best Option: • River flow • Inefficiencies of existing plant

41. Costs of Building New Plant

42. Economic Feasibility • Economically Infeasible for Potsdam to build a new plant • Average of $0.03599 per kilowatt-hour would create average annual revenue of $133,177 • Borrowing $2,438,500 at 6% interest would take 50 years to recover present value

43. Conclusion • Infeasible for Clarkson to implement Hydroelectric power • Best use of river- build an additional plant • Economically infeasible until energy prices increase dramatically or town acquires additional funds

44. Co-Generation/Load Leveling Team

45. Areas of Concentration: Co-Generation Equipment Restrictions Exhaust Heat Usage Natural Gas Costs NiMo Pricing Schedule Load Leveling Electric to Gas Oven Conversion Conservation through voluntary blackouts Student Survey Feedback Primary Areas of Study: Co-Generation Equipment Fuel Energy Savings Maintenance Load Leveling Storage Conservation Improving Efficiency Semester Overview

46. Hypothetical Costs and Savings • Costs Based on: • Energy Use/Peaks between August 2001 and July 2002 • 800kW Caterpillar Co-Generation Unit • $4.21/1000 Cubic Feet (MCF) in Fuel Costs • Savings Based on: • Niagara Mohawk Pricing Schedule • Savings Based on Price of Power (Peak Load) • Save Up to $5759/month

47. Peak Usage

48. Net Savings/Loss Graph

49. Efficiency Convection Ovens Electricity Operating Costs: $1.60/day Gas Operating Costs: $0.59/day Savings: $350/year Conveyer Pizza Oven Electricity Operating Costs: $8.88/day Gas Operating Costs: $3.44/day Savings: $2,000/year Over 250% more cost effective Conservation Student survey and energy usage 78% of students willing to participate in voluntary blackout Costs reduced in half (approximately $600 per hour on a random day), if willing participants shut off half of their appliances Load Leveling

50. Recommendations • Storage may be feasible in future as costs go down • The use of co-generation can cut energy costs • Conversion to gas ovens can save a substantial amount of the campus energy costs • Voluntary blackouts will work if an implementation system is established