1 / 10

Igor Mezic, Director Center for Energy Efficient Design (CEED), Head,

Igor Mezic, Director Center for Energy Efficient Design (CEED), Head, Buildings & Design Solutions Group, Institute for Energy Efficiency. Integrated, Energy-Efficient Design. Center for Energy Efficient Design. Integrated Building Systems Energy Efficiency in Transportation

lelia
Download Presentation

Igor Mezic, Director Center for Energy Efficient Design (CEED), Head,

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. Igor Mezic, Director Center for Energy Efficient Design (CEED), Head, Buildings & Design Solutions Group, Institute for Energy Efficiency Integrated, Energy-Efficient Design

  2. Center for Energy Efficient Design • Integrated Building Systems • Energy Efficiency in Transportation • Energy Storage • Energy Harvesting and Micropower (off-grid) Generation • Data Center Cooling • Smart Grid Interdisciplinary.Unifying theme: Dynamics. Control. Computation. http://iee.ucsb.edu/ceed

  3. Energy Breakdown by Sector What are we trying to do? Why does it matter? Can we do 70% better in NEW buildings? 90% better? 50% better in RETROFITS?

  4. How is it done today, and what are the limitations of current practice? • “Properly applied offtheshelf or state-of-the-shelf technologies are available to • achieve low-energy buildings. However, these strategies must be applied together • and properly integrated in the design, installation, and operation to realize • energy savings. There is no single efficiency measure or checklist of measures • to achieve low-energy buildings.” • -NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF BEST-In-CLAS COMPONENTS • “-There was often a lack of control software or appropriate control logic to allow the • technologies to work well together. • -Design teams were too optimistic about the behavior of the occupants and their • acceptance of systems. • -Energy savings from daylighting were substantial, but were generally less than • expected. • -Plug loads were often greater than design predictions. • -Effective insulation values are often inflated when comparing the actual building • to the asdesigned building. • -PV systems experienced a range of operational performance degradations. • Common degradation sources included snow, inverter faults, shading, and parasitic • standby losses. “ • -NEED INTEGRATED CONTROL SOFTWARE AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS • Each of these buildings saved energy, with energy use 25% to 70% lower than code. • Although each building is a good energy performer, additional energy efficiency • and on-site generation is required for these buildings to reach DOE’s ZEB goal. • -NEED FOR FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN BLUEPRINTS Unique Faculty in CCDC Cookie-cutter

  5. How is it done today, and what are the limitations of current practice? • “Properly applied offtheshelf or state-of-the-shelf technologies are available to • achieve low-energy buildings. However, these strategies must be applied together • and properly integrated in the design, installation, and operation to realize • energy savings. There is no single efficiency measure or checklist of measures • to achieve low-energy buildings.” • -NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF BEST-In-CLAS COMPONENTS • “-There was often a lack of control software or appropriate control logic to allow the • technologies to work well together. • -Design teams were too optimistic about the behavior of the occupants and their • acceptance of systems. • -Energy savings from daylighting were substantial, but were generally less than • expected. • -Plug loads were often greater than design predictions. • -Effective insulation values are often inflated when comparing the actual building • to the asdesigned building. • -PV systems experienced a range of operational performance degradations. • Common degradation sources included snow, inverter faults, shading, and parasitic • standby losses. “ • -NEED INTEGRATED CONTROL SOFTWARE AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS • Each of these buildings saved energy, with energy use 25% to 70% lower than code. • Although each building is a good energy performer, additional energy efficiency • and on-site generation is required for these buildings to reach DOE’s ZEB goal. • -NEED FOR FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN BLUEPRINTS What does the DNA of a Zero Energy Building LOOK LIKE? Unique Faculty in CCDC Cookie-cutter

  6. From tracking an visualizing temperature sensor data… APRIL OCTOBER Stanford Precourt Institute building

  7. …to providing REAL-TIME actionable inteligence on Energy Efficiency trouble spots… OCTOBER APRIL Action needed here Action needed here Stanford Precourt Institute building

  8. DOE seed project (with LBL,UTC) Energy Efficiency in a UC Merced building The Classroom and Office Building at UC Merced A small number of parameters affect energy output! • 92000sq ft. Leed gold building

  9. …and CRITICAL PARAMETER MANAGEMENT for large Energy savings… Optimize for ENERGY SAVINGS

  10. PARTNERSHIPS University partnerships: Caltech, Stanford, Princeton,… National laboratories Student Affairs CEED Facilities Commercial partners Funding agencies International partnerships HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC KYOYO UNIVERSITY

More Related