Esvt Report 032713

9 Washington Street
Rutland, Vermont 05701

Tel: (802)855-8091
www.engineeringvermont.com
March 27 2013
ESVT Project No. 13003
NewBrook Elementary School
14 School Road
Newfane, VT 05435
Attn: Christopher A. Pratt, Principal
Re: Final-Energy Improvements Study
Dear Christopher:
The following final report has been prepared for new heating system alternatives for the
New Brook Elementary School, located in Newfane, Vermont.
I have also incorporated the questions and responses generated from the preliminary draft.
Questions and Responses:
1.
Based on the figures you provided regarding actual fuel usage, the average fuel usage
over the two years listed on pg. 3 is 6,939 gallons (vs. 9,684 gallons as indicated).
Could you please help us understand the figure you provided?
Response: There was an error in the spread sheet, the report has been revised to
correct this error, this includes revisions to the life cycle analysis.
2.
As far as we call tell, alternatives #1 and #2 do not reflect the costs of correcting the
current problems with the buildings heating control and distribution systems, which
result in uneven distribution of heat. This is an issue that we would like to address,
regardless of which alternative we choose. If we are correct in assuming that the
figures for options #1 and #2 do not reflect these costs, could you provide us with
adjusted figures that include the cost of correcting this problem?
Response: This is correct the cost to correct the current problems with the heating air
distribution have not been included in alternative No. 1 and 2. We have included the
costs to address these issues in the revised report. The costs included in the report
include replacement ventilation and heating equipment and new building controls for
both alternatives.
3.
Alternative #3: On pg. 8, you recommend hiring a hydro geologist to identify the
Page 2
Energy Improvement Study
earth thermal conductivity, potential groundwater impacts, and associated permitting

issues. How much would you estimate such an assessment would cost?
Response: I would recommend obtaining a proposal for this work, there are several
qualified consultants that could provide a proposal for these services. I would prefer
not to provide an estimate.
4.
Alternative #4:
a.
Does the estimate you provided assume a system sized only to meet the additional
electrical demand of having a geothermal system or the entire schools estimated
electrical needs?
Response: The system utilized in the report is based on the information provided
by the schools PV consultant. We utilized this data for a nominal 48 KW system

which was projected to produce 62,000 Kwh per year. This system was sized to
meet only the current electrical needs.
If it is the former, could you provide revised estimates that reflect a PV system
sized to meet the schools overall estimated electrical demand?
The current annual electrical usage for the school is 64,888 Kwh with a peak
demand of 30 KW. We project that the annual heat pump system electrical
consumption would be 78,757 Kwh and the demand will increase to
approximately 80KW. Based on this, the annual electrical energy consumption
would essentially double, so for the purposes of this study we have doubled the
PV system capacity. If this alternative proves to be something that the School is
interested in pursuing in greater detail, then we would recommend more detailed
analysis of the PV system alternatives and costs to confirm the costs utilized in this
report.
b.
What is the anticipated life cycle of the closed loop system vs. the wells?
Response: In our experience the primary effect on the life cycle cost between the
two is the first cost. In general, the twenty year life cycle operating costs for a
closed loop system is approximately 5% higher than a standing column well
system. However, by nature wells are very unpredictable and can dissipate,
vanish or reduce capacity during the life cycle. For the purposes of this study we
recommend the closed loop system, however the results from the hydro geologist
study may change this.
c.
As I indicated in a previous email, there seems to be an error in the life cycle cost
for this alternative. What is the correct figure?
Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC
Final Report 3/27/2013
Page 3
Response: there was a typo. in the body of the letter, we have revised the life cycle
costs and have increased the capacity of PV system.

5.
Alternatives #3 & #4:

a.
We understand that you assumed a 15-yr. study period when calculating life cycle
costs. However, does this assumption reflect the actual life cycle of the
geothermal system (options #3 and #4)? The cost figures cited in the appendix
suggest a 15-yr. life cycle for options #1 and #2; it is our understanding that the
life cycle of a geothermal system is generally 30 yrs. Is this correct? If so, could
you revise your estimates so we are comparing apples to apples? Specifically, if a
geothermal system will last 30 yrs. and the other systems 15 yrs., then the life
cycle costs should reflect an initial capital investment and then the costs of
replacing the boilers and pellet system after 15 yrs. Alternatively, the life cycle
costs of the geothermal system could be reduced by 50% so we compare life
cycle costs during the same 15 yr. period for all four options.
Response: The life cycle for the earth loop is 30 years however; the life
expectancy of the heat pump units is in the 20 year range. Pellet boilers and oil
boilers have an expected life of 25 years. Based on this, it is our opinion that the
15 year analysis is valid. We would be willing to run a , 20 or 30 year LLC
analysis if requested.
b.
It appears that the bore holes would encroach on the existing playground and
into the property adjacent to the school. It also looks like they would come
precipitously close to the septic system. Are we reading the map correctly? If so,
are those concerns that you would have as well about this option?
Response: The bore holes would be completely buried (not exposed in
playground), the final position of the bore field would need to be located and
configured prior to final design. Please use this as a conceptual arrangement
designed to show a potential configuration.
Purpose
The scope of this purpose of this report includes a detailed un-biased analysis of each of
these the following heating system alternatives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Replacement of the existing oil fired boilers with new equipment.

Installation of a wood pellet boiler system
Geothermal HVAC system
Geothermal HVAC system coupled with a photovoltaic system to offset the
electrical consumption.
Page 4
This report will include conceptual level engineering analysis to identify the following for
each alternative:
1. Develop a building heating load using recognized heating load methods.
2. Evaluate the specific details and loads to determine the implementation
considerations for each alternative.
3. Develop a conceptual level design with sufficient detail to shown system
arrangement capacity and to estimate the construction cost range for each
alternative.
4. Prepare life cycle cost analysis for each alterative.
Existing Conditions:
General:
The building is an 18,050 square feet one-story; wood framed building serving
approximately 140 students in the Kindergarten through grade 6.
The building consists of the original north part building and the south area of the building
which was an addition to original the building. Each area of the building is provided with
separate heating systems. The North Area houses a Multi-Purpose Room, Kitchen and
approximately seven classrooms. The South Area of the building houses the Library, School
Offices, Art and Music Classroom and Toilet Rooms. The two areas of the building are
separated by a firewall.
Boiler Systems:
The existing school is provided with two boiler systems, each system acts independently.
One serves the north original area of the school and the other serves the south addition
Original Building: The original boiler is a hot water HB Smith 25 Mills Boiler with a peak
output capacity of 417,000 BTUH, this boiler provides space heating and includes a
domestic water heating coil with an electric back-up water heater for summertime use.
Based on our inspection it appears that this boiler is near the end of its useful life. The
boiler is currently fired at 3.00 GPH. This system is provided with a three way hot way reset
valve which was designed to vary the supply water to the system based on the outdoor air
conditions.
Addition: The addition is provided with a Hot Water Peerless Boiler, with a Gross heat
output of 286,000 BTUH. This boiler also provides heat for domestic hot water using an
indirect fired water heater.
Page 5
Heating and Ventilation Systems:

The original part of the building is served by a circulator pump, hot water supply and return
distribution to all rooms. The classrooms and gymnasium are provided with unit ventilators.
All classrooms are provided with exhaust, connected to a common rooftop exhaust fan.
The south addition is served by a single circulator pump with hot water distribution to room
heating units. Ventilation is provided by an air to air heat recovery unit located in the attic.
Existing Heating Load and Heating Fuel Usage and Fuel Cost:
Based on Historical Fuel Usage the average annual fuel usage for the building is 6,983.3
gallons. Below is a summary of the historical fuel usage for the heating seasons 2010-2011
and 2009-2010.
Heating Season 2010-2011
Date
Gallons
12/16/2011
854
12/16/2011
646
12/11/2011
2490.7
12/6/2011
1500.3
Total
5491
Heating Season 2009-2010

Date
Gallons
12/1/2009
3056.4
12/1/2009
2814.4
3/17/2010
2515.8
Total
8386.6
Average Usage
6983.8
Gallons
Based on our calculations the peak heating load for this building is approximately 700,000
BTUH or a peak heating lad of 38.78 BTUH/ square foot.
For the purposes of this report we will be using a fuel oil cost of $3.50 per gallon and an
annual heating cost of $24,443.30 per year.
Page 6
Existing Electrical Usage and Cost:

Based on the 2011 billings provided, the electrical usage was 64,888 KWH, with a peak
demand of 30 KW. The annual cost for electricity during the same time period was
$10,555.44. The average energy cost for electricity at this school is $0.163/kwh. The
electrical usage for this site was 3.594 Kwh/square foot. The following table provides
detailed breakdown:
Calendar Year 2011
Energy
TOD
Energy
Demand
Service
EEC
Total
Energy
Usage
Demand
Charges
Charges
Charge
Charge
Charges
Cost
Month
(KWH)
(KW)
($)
($)
($)
($)
($)
($/KWH)
December-11
5840.0
26
$583.00
$275.00
$14.92
$51.92
$924.84
$0.158
November-11
6400.0
24.8
$635.00
$259.00
$17.06
$53.73
$964.79
$0.151
October-11
5080.0
25.2
$522.00
$265.00
$15.46
$47.38
$849.84
$0.167
September-11
3560.0
24.4
$394.00
$254.00
$14.92
$38.96
$701.88
$0.197
August-11
3520.0
18.4
$372.00
$175.00
$17.06
$33.63
$597.69
$0.170
July-11
3040.0
16.4
$317.00
$149.00
$14.92
$29.48
$510.40
$0.168
June-11
5720.0
24.8
$585.00
$259.00
$18.12
$50.28
$912.40
$0.160
May-11
5720.0
26
$584.00
$275.00
$17.06
$51.31
$927.37
$0.162
April-11
6400.0
28
$637.00
$301.00
$15.46
$56.47
$1,009.93
$0.158
March-11
6320.0
27.6
$641.00
$296.00
$15.46
$55.73
$1,008.19
$0.160
February-11
6800.0
29.2
$687.00
$317.00
$15.46
$59.53
$1,078.99
$0.159
January-11
6480.0
30
$676.00
$328.00
$17.06
$49.06
$1,070.12
$0.165
Totals
64880.0
$6,633.00
$3,153.00
$192.96
$577.48
$10,556.44
$0.163
Analysis of New Heating System Alternatives:

As requested we have prepared the following analysis for four alternatives this analysis
includes evaluation of the specific details and loads to determine the implementation
considerations, a conceptual level design with sufficient detail to shown system arrangement
capacity and to estimate the construction cost range for each alternative. This analysis also
includes a life cycle cost analysis for each of the flowing alternatives:
Alternative No. 1 - Replacement of Existing Boilers with New Equipment
Alternative No. 2 - Install a Wood Pellet Boiler System
Alternative No. 3 - Geothermal HVAC System
Alternative No. 4 - Geothermal HVAC System with 96KW PV Array
Page 7
Alternative No. 1 Replacement of Existing Boilers with New Equipment:

This alternative involves an analysis for providing two oil fired boilers located in the original
boiler room to serve the entire heating load. Refer to Appendix 1 for design concept
sketches and supporting construction cost estimate.
Implementation Considerations:
Remove both Boilers and Breechings
Remove existing three way hot water reset control valve.
Provide two (2) oil fired Buderus G315-6 Section Oil Fired Boilers each with an output
capacity of 395,000 BTUH each.
Provide three new circulators, one for the original, one for the addition and one back
up.
Provide new boiler combustion and ventilation air system.
Provide boiler staging and hot water reset control system.
Estimated improved efficiency of 15% in system
Replace Existing Ventilation Equipment and controls to correct operational and comfort
issues.
Estimated Implementation Cost:
(Refer Appendix 1 for construction estimate)
$272,000
Estimated Annual Fuel Savings:

Fuel Cost:
Estimated Fuel Cost Savings:
1,136 Gallons
$3.50 per Gallon
$3,976
Simple Payback:
68.4 Years
Life Cycle Cost-Based on a 15 Year Study Period:

(Refer to Appendix 5 for detailed Life Cycle analysis)
$604,110
Page 8
Alternative No. 2 Provide Replacement Wood Pellet Boiler System:

This alternative involves an analysis for providing one pellet boiler located in the original
boiler room to serve the entire heating load. Refer to Appendix 2 for design concept
sketches and supporting construction cost estimate.
Remove both Boilers and Breechings
Remove existing three way hot water reset control valve.
Provide one (1) 750,000 BTUH Wood Pellet Boiler and 37 ton Wood Pellet Silo
Provide four (4) new circulators, one for the pellet boiler, one for the original building,
one for the addition and one back up.
Provide new boiler combustion and ventilation air system.
Provide new wood pellet boiler control system.
Replace Existing Ventilation Equipment and controls to correct operational and comfort
issues
(Refer Appendix 2 for construction estimate)
$402,820

Fuel Cost:
Estimated Fuel Cost Savings:
$240 per Ton

$11,742
Simple Payback:
34.3 Years

$610,925
Page 9
Alternative No. 3 Provide Geothermal Heat Pump System:

This alternative involves an analysis for providing a geothermal heat pump system with a
total heating capacity of 620,000 BTUH or 52 tons of total heating capacity. The most
critical part of utilizing this type of system is determining the method of earth coupling or
geo-exchanger. The flowing summarizes the three basic methods, although other hybrid
methods have been implemented:
Closed Loop Slinky Piping and Buried Horizontal Pipe Systems: These systems consist of
a horizontal closed loop system that generally require approximately 1,000 feet of
piping per ton of capacity buried 4-10 feet deep, these systems typically include 500
foot long trenches with two pipes trenches are typically spaces 6-12 feet apart. The
area required is typically in the 2,000 to 3,000 square feet per ton depending on soil
properties. Slinky systems utilize approximately 1000 feet of high density polyethylene
coiled piping that typical fits in a 100 foot long trench which provides approximately 1
ton of capacity. These systems typically require in the range of 500-800 square feet per
ton. So based on the 52 tons of loads a buried horizontal pipe system would require a
minimum of 26,000 feet or trench and 52,000 feet of pipe. For the Slinky system 5,200
feet of trench would be required.
Closed Loop Vertical Piping: Typically these systems utilize a 300-400 foot deep well
per ton of cooling with a capacity of approximately 1 ton per bore hole, so for this
building a minimum 52 bore holes would be required. Bore holes are typically spaced
approximately 25 feet apart. We have prepared a concept drawing for this layout in
Appendix 3.
Standing Column Wells-This type of Well systems consist of bore holes cased until
bedrock is reached, a central pipe is dropped to form a core which he water in pumped
up, water is return at the top around the suction pipe. A typical well would be in the
1,500 foot depth and would provide around 30 tons or 360,000 BTUH each, this site
would require at least two 1,500 foot deep standing column wells, spaced at a
minimum of 75 feet between the wells. We have prepared a concept drawing for this
layout in Appendix 3.
The closed loop systems would require the system to be filled with an environmentally
friendly propylene glycol installed within the piping system. These systems also require a
grouting material around the pipe which adds to resistance to heat transfer.
Based on the above geo-exchanger alternatives we evaluated the site and determined that
either a closed loop vertical system or a standing column well system would be the only
feasible alternatives. We evaluated the approximate cost for each of these as follows:
Closed Loop Vertical: ($5,000 per ton) $260,000
Standing Column Wells: ($4,000 per ton) $208,000
Based on the fact that the geo-exchanger has not been sized, we have budgeted $300,000
for the geo-exchanger system. We recommend that a closed loop system be provided for
Page 10
this site, unless the hydro geologist study reveals significant benefit to using the standing
column well. The closed loop system avoids concerns with well depletion and future
capacity concerns.
The well system should be separated from the drinking water well systems to avoid
permitting issues related to wells, property and septic system setbacks. It is strongly
recommended that before proceeding with the final design and implementation of a
geothermal system that the final sizing and arrangement of the geo-exchanger involve a
hydro geologist to identify the earth thermal conductivity, and potential ground water
impacts and associated permitting issues.
Remove both boilers and breechings and entire existing heating systems
Replace all existing hot water unit ventilators in classrooms with geothermal classroom
unit ventilators.
Provide heat pump unit for Office Area Kitchen, Corridors, and Kitchen
Provide new geothermal piping to all units including valves, insulation and balancing.
$789,525
(Refer Appendix 3 for construction estimate, includes geo-exchanger costs)
$14,222
Simple Payback:
55.5 Years

$977,504
Page 11
Alternative No. 4 Provide Geothermal Heat Pump System coupled with a Photovoltaic
System:
This alternative involves installation of the heat pump system described in Alternative No. 3
along with a photovoltaic system to offset electrical energy consumption.
Based on our estimates the table below shows the projected changes to the building
electrical demand due to the installation of the heat pump system.
Month
Existing TOD
Demand
(KW)
Dec
26
Nov
24.8
Oct
25.2
Sept
24.4
Aug
18.4
July
16.4
June
24.8
May
26
April
28
Mar
27.6
Feb
29.2
Jan
30
Projected Increase in
Demand
(KW)
Projected Total
Demand
KW
38
30
24
14
0
0
0
18
26
36
42
45
64
55
49
39
18
16
25
44
54
64
72
75
The peak projected building electrical demand will increase from 30 KW to 75 KW with the
heat pump system.
This analysis is based on installation of a 96 KW ground mounted non-tracking system with
a single point connection to the existing electrical system. According to projections prepared
by the solar consultant this system is projected to produce 124,000 Kwh annually. The
estimated total annual electrical consumption for this building with the heat pump system is
projected to be 125,668 Kwh per year.
Heat Pump System (See Alternative No.3)
$789,525
(Refer Appendix 3 for construction estimate, includes geo-exchanger costs)
Solar System Cost Estimate
(Cost Estimate Provided by PV consultant,
Refer to Appendix 4)
$340,000
Total Estimated Implementation Cost
$ 1,129,525
Page 12

Heating Fuel Savings
Electrical Energy Savings
(Energy Usage Savings only
$0.10/kwh at 124,000 kWh)
$14,222
$12,400
Total Savings
$26,622
Simple Payback:
42.4 Years

$1,171,944
Please review the findings of this study and call if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Engineering Services of Vermont
Daniel W. Dupras, P.E.

Mechanical Engineer, Principal
Transmitted: Via Email
APPENDIX 1
REPLACE EXISTING BOILERS
JOB
SHEET NO.
Project
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
128 Merchants Row, Suite 209 - PO Box 6562

Rutland, Vermont 05702-6562
(802)855-8091
Item
Date: 2013-03-27
Description
Units
Quantity
Material Labor
Total
Alternative No.1-New Oil Boilers to Replace Existing and Correct Existing Comfort Issues
Preliminary Construction Estimate
Mechanical
Demolition
New Boilers GB-315-6
Burners
Controls
Breechings
Chimney Liner
Pumps
Wiring
Oil Piping
Interconnection Piping
Insulation
Boiler Comsbution Air System
Start-Up
Project Subtotal
11013
CLIENT
NewBrook
1
OF
NewBrook Elem. School
DWD
DWD
Ls
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lf
Ls
Ls
Ls
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
500
1
2
2
$0.00
$6,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$5,000.00
$750.00
$250.00
$750.00
$15.00
$2,500.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$2,500.00
$250.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$2,500.00
$250.00
$200.00
$250.00
$10.00
$1,500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$3,000.00
$17,000.00
$3,500.00
$2,500.00
$3,000.00
$7,500.00
$3,000.00
$1,350.00
$2,000.00
$12,500.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
$1,000.00
$63,350.00
$3,000.00 $2,000.00
$2.00
$1.00
$2.00
$1.00
$750.00 $500.00
$0.00 $500.00
$55,000.00
$54,000.00
$54,000.00
$15,000.00
$6,000.00
$184,000.00
Corrective Measures to Existing System

Replace Unit Ventilators
Repiping and valves
New Controls
Wiring
Re-Balancing
Project Subtotal
Estimated MEP Subtotal
Recommended Contigency
ESTIMATED MEP TOTAL
Ea
Ea
Sf
Ea
Ls
11
18000
18000
12
12
10.00%
$247,350.00
$24,735.00
$272,085.00
APPENDIX 2
WOOD PELLET BOILER
ENGINEERING SERVICES OF VERMONT

Project
NewBrook Elementray School
Date
3/27/2013
Prepared By
WOOD PELLET ANALYSIS
Building Anaylsis Information
Calculated Heatloss
HDD
Temp. Difference
CD Factor
Fuel
Pellet Density
Heat Content
System Efficiency
Fuel Cost.Ton
Yearly Estimate Use
Tons/Year
Monthly Usage Estimate
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
620000 BTUH
6800 DD
85 Delta T
0.61
Pellets
40
8000
85%
$240.00
106785.88
53.4
Fuel
Heat Content
System Efficiency
Fuel Cost
Yearly Estimate Use
Lbs/CF
BTU/lb
per Ton
Lbs/Year
Tons/Year
%
Tons Used
18.20%
9.7
16.60%
8.9
13.70%
7.3
8.70%
4.6
4.20%
2.2
1.60%
0.9
0.00%
0.0
0.00%
0.0
3.30%
1.8
6.60%
3.5
10.80%
5.8
16.30%
8.7
100.00%
53.4
Cost
$2,332.20
$2,127.17
$1,755.56
$1,114.84
$538.20
$205.03
$0.00
$0.00
$422.87
$845.74
$1,383.95
$2,088.73
$12,814.31
Fuel Oil
138000 BTU/lb
75%
$3.50 per gallon
7015.9 Gallons/Year
Monthly Usage Estimate%

Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
18.20%
16.60%
13.70%
8.70%
4.20%
1.60%
0.00%
0.00%
3.30%
6.60%
10.80%
16.30%
100.00%
Gallons Used
1276.9
1164.6
961.2
610.4
294.7
112.3
0.0
0.0
231.5
463.0
757.7
1143.6
7015.9
Cost
$4,469.12
$4,076.23
$3,364.12
$2,136.34
$1,031.33
$392.89
$0.00
$0.00
$810.33
$1,620.67
$2,652.00
$4,002.56
$24,555.59
JOB
SHEET NO.
Project
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY

(802)855-8091
Item
Description
Units
Quantity
11013
CLIENT
NewBrook
1
OF
1
DWD
DWD
Date: 2013-03-27
Material
Labor
Total
Alternative No.2 - New Wood Pellet Boiler System to Replace Existing Oil Boilers
A
Mechanical
Demolition
New Wood Pellet Boiler
Pellet Silo 37 ton
Concrete Pad for Silo
Pellet Auger
Controls
Breechings
UL 103HT chimney
Pumps
Wiring
Interconnection Piping
Insulation
Boiler Comsbution Air System
Start-Up
Project Subtotal
Ls
Ea
Ea
Ls
Ls
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lf
Ls
Ls
Ls
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
6
500
1
1
2
$0.00 $1,500.00
$60,000.00 $30,000.00
$25,000.00 $7,500.00
$1,500.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00 $1,000.00
$5,000.00 $2,000.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$7,500.00 $2,500.00
$750.00
$250.00
$500.00
$200.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5,000.00 $2,000.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00 $1,500.00
$3,000.00
$90,000.00
$32,500.00
$2,500.00
$3,500.00
$7,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,200.00
$12,500.00
$7,000.00
$1,500.00
$3,000.00
$182,200.00
Corrective Measures to Existing System

Replace Unit Ventilators
Repiping and valves
New Controls
Wiring
Re-Balancing
Project Subtotal

ESTIMATED TOTAL
Ea
Ea
Sf
Ea
Ls
11
18000
18000
12
12
10%
$3,000.00
$2.00
$2.00
$750.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$1.00
$1.00
$500.00
$500.00
$55,000.00
$54,000.00
$54,000.00
$15,000.00
$6,000.00
$184,000.00
$366,200.00
$36,620.00
$402,820.00
APPENDIX 3
GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM
ENGINEERING SERVICES OF VERMONT

Project
NewBrook Elementray School
Date
3/27/2013
Prepared By
GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP ANALYSIS
Building Anaylsis Information
Calculated Heatloss
620000 BTUH
HDD
6800 DD
Temp. Difference
85 Delta T
CD Factor
0.61
COP
Constant
Effciency Factor
Average Energy Cost
Yearly Estimated Use
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Geothermal System
3.5
3413 BTUH/KWH
350%
$0.17 Cost/KWH
60,788.1 KWH/Year
%
18.20%
16.60%
13.70%
8.70%
4.20%
1.60%
0.00%
0.00%
3.30%
6.60%
10.80%
16.30%
100.00%
KWH
11063.4
10090.8
8328.0
5288.6
2553.1
972.6
0.0
0.0
2006.0
4012.0
6565.1
9908.5
60788.1
Cost
$1,880.78
$1,715.44
$1,415.75
$899.06
$434.03
$165.34
$0.00
$0.00
$341.02
$682.04
$1,116.07
$1,684.44
$10,333.97
Fuel
Heat Content
System Efficiency
Fuel Cost
Yearly Estimate Use
Fuel Oil
138000 BTU/gallon
75%
$3.50 per gallon
7015.9 Gallons/Year

Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
%
18.20%
16.60%
13.70%
8.70%
4.20%
1.60%
0.00%
0.00%
3.30%
6.60%
10.80%
16.30%
100.00%
Gallons Used
1276.9
1164.6
961.2
610.4
294.7
112.3
0.0
0.0
231.5
463.0
757.7
1143.6
7015.9
Cost
$4,469.12
$4,076.23
$3,364.12
$2,136.34
$1,031.33
$392.89
$0.00
$0.00
$810.33
$1,620.67
$2,652.00
$4,002.56
$24,555.59
JOB
SHEET NO.
Project
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY

(802)855-8091
Item
Description
Units
Quantity
11013
CLIENT
NewBrook
1
OF
1
DWD
DWD
Date: 2013-03-27
Material
Labor
Total
Alternative No.3 Geothermal System

A
Mechanical
Demoltion
Geothemal Well System
Unit Ventilators and Heat Pumps
3 ton Office Area Heat Pump
Piping
Insulation
Controls
Wiring
Pumps
Start-Up
Project Subtotal
Ls
Ls
Ea
Ea
Ls
Ls
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ls
18000
1
16
1
18000
18000
18000
17
2
17

ESTIMATED TOTAL
10.00%
$0.00
$0.75
$200,000.00 $100,000.00
$6,000.00
$3,000.00
$12,000.00
$3,000.00
$5.00
$3.00
$0.50
$0.25
$2.00
$1.00
$750.00
$500.00
$1,500.00
$500.00
$0.00
$500.00
$13,500.00
$300,000.00
$144,000.00
$15,000.00
$144,000.00
$13,500.00
$54,000.00
$21,250.00
$4,000.00
$8,500.00
$717,750.00
$717,750.00
$71,775.00
$789,525.00
APPENDIX 4
GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM
WITH PV SYSTEM
APPENDIX 5
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Esvt Report 032713

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esvt Report 032713

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Washington Street

Rutland, Vermont 05701

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

earth thermal conductivity, potential groundwater impacts, and associated permitting

by the schools PV consultant. We utilized this data for a nominal 48 KW system

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

costs and have increased the capacity of PV system.

Alternatives #3 & #4:

Replacement of the existing oil fired boilers with new equipment.

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Heating and Ventilation Systems:

Heating Season 2009-2010

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Existing Electrical Usage and Cost:

Analysis of New Heating System Alternatives:

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Alternative No. 1 Replacement of Existing Boilers with New Equipment:

Estimated Annual Fuel Savings:

Life Cycle Cost-Based on a 15 Year Study Period:

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Alternative No. 2 Provide Replacement Wood Pellet Boiler System:

Estimated Annual Fuel Savings:

$240 per Ton

Life Cycle Cost-Based on a 15 Year Study Period:

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Alternative No. 3 Provide Geothermal Heat Pump System:

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Life Cycle Cost-Based on a 15 Year Study Period:

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School

Energy Improvement Study

Total Estimated Implementation Cost

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC

Final Report 3/27/2013

NewBrook Elementary School