University Park, Pa. -- The introduction of energy-saving washers is just the latest in a long laundry list of initiatives implemented in recent years by Penn State that are designed to save natural resources and money.
The installation will allow the University to continue reducing water consumption and energy use on the University Park campus. According to Office of Physical Plant (OPP) figures, between the 1988-89 and the 2002-03 academic years, water consumption was reduced approximately 10 percent, from more than one billion gallons to about .9 billion gallons of water. This decrease in water consumption occurred despite campus population numbers (faculty, staff and students) increasing from a little more than 40,000 to almost 50,000 during the same period of time. This reduction was the result of a number of University programs and initiatives aimed at conservation.
The University Park campus also is focusing on decreasing overall energy consumption. Between the academic years 1988-89 and 2002-03 the per-person, per-square-footage energy use has remained stable. Two major, multi-faceted programs now under way work to target specific buildings and projects to decrease energy and natural-resource consumption.
Continuous Commissioning
This first program, called Continuous Commissioning, began around 1999. Under this in-house program, the University takes a look at individual buildings on a case-by-case basis and analyzes the heating, cooling and plumbing systems to see what can be done to decrease energy consumption. This program works similarly to a mechanic tuning up a car, optimizing the operation of existing systems within individual buildings, including repairs or retrofits to heating, cooling and plumbing.
As of March of 2004, commissioning costs were about $973,000, with an annual energy cost savings of $181,200. That amounts to a payback time — the amount of time required to recover original investment — of less than five and a half years.
Guaranteed Energy Savings Program
The second program, the Guaranteed Energy Savings Program (GESP), weighs the cost of a project against the energy savings realized after implementation. Any proposed project must show a payback in terms of energy savings of 10 years or less, the industry's standard feasibility time frame.
Through GESP, $7 million has been invested in major renovations and/or equipment replacements done by an approved energy services contractor. Since its inception, an average of $856,000 in annual energy savings has been realized, equating to a payback in little more than eight years on average.
These programs are a change from the University's approach to energy savings in the 1970s, when the emphasis was on changing personal behavior. Although making individuals aware of the need for energy conservation still is a piece of the puzzle, the emphasis has shifted to take advantage of new equipment and technologies that allow for energy efficiency without inconveniencing the user.
"We've gone in and replaced existing lighting with energy-saving systems that feature the latest, most-efficient technology. Most users haven't noticed any changes except that the lighting levels improved," said Laura Miller, OPP energy program engineer.
To date, 36 buildings have been identified as the biggest energy users. Of these, residence halls give the University the biggest/fastest return on investment.
Some of the individual components of Continuous Commissioning and the GESP include:
— Lights with sensors that detect lack of movement after a period of time and automatically turn off;
— Air conditioners that include a carbon dioxide monitor to determine how many individuals are in a room based on the room's level of carbon dioxide. These monitors then adjust the airflow according to the room's occupancy;
— Installing new, energy-efficient lighting to replace older fluorescent systems;
— Replacing residence hall's toilets, shower heads, sinks and urinals with new, energy-efficient models;
— Replacing heating and cooling controls to optimize existing systems; and
— Installing water-treatment systems that improve the efficiency of steam production for campus heating.
In addition to Continuous Commissioning and GESP, the University has been controlling energy costs for many years by using a central controlling system. This remote system automatically regulates the temperature of rooms and buildings based on occupancy. One example of how this is used includes dropping building temperatures during the University's annual holiday break. This saves the University an average of $200,000 per year in avoided heating costs.
The University also shops for electric and natural gas month by month or for periods of 12 to 24 months, based on market conditions. The best prices are locked in.
Wind Power
One new undertaking that has not been held to the 10-year payback is the University's use of wind power. In an effort to rely less on fossil fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the University is relying on wind power for 5 percent of its power. The University's use of this clean-energy source has more to do with helping to reduce the effects of global warming and less to do with financial numbers.
Penn State is an early leader in the adoption of a renewable wind energy source, which, unlike its conventional electricity-generating counterparts, does not have a negative impact on the environment.
New Buildings
The energy efficiency of new buildings is now a strong consideration.
No longer is situating a building onto a lot simply a matter of aligning it with existing streets and roads. Now, the University takes into account the direction of sunlight and where present and future trees are situated. The correct placement of deciduous trees between the sun and the building allows the building to be cooled in the summer and permits sunlight through to heat the building in winter. In an additional effort to use resources wisely, the landscaping surrounding the building is watered with rainwater collected from the building.
All these considerations are being taken into account in the construction of two Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED-certified buildings. One of the more unusual features of the first LEED building, the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (SALA) Building, will be a copper skin, rather than the traditional brick facing. This allows for the recycling of the outer coating of the building if it were to be demolished years down the road.
Construction on the second LEED building, the forestry building, will begin shortly. This building will afford the University an ideal opportunity to work with the forestry industry to integrate and demonstrate Pennsylvania hardwoods into the design.
Lessons learned on environmentally friendly buildings like the SALA and forestry buildings may one day translate to widespread, real-world applications.
"This is sweeping the country. Our kids will live in a much different world than we know. The new approach is to consider the environmental envelope so that you take into consideration the botanical surroundings, including wind speed, direction, rainfall, sun angle and the long-term environmental impact of the building," said Paul Ruskin, OPP customer services coordinator.
The positive effects of increased emphasis on good environmental stewardship go well beyond the obvious monetary savings.
For example, when 5,600 University exit sign lights were replaced with light-emitting diode lighting systems, translating to a 90 percent energy savings and financial savings totaling $70,000 per year, financial savings weren't the only benefits. These lights are anticipated to have a life expectancy of between 30 and 100 years, virtually eliminating staff time previously associated with changing burned-out light bulbs.
Another example of squeezing more than one positive outcome from a project is the erection of a structure to house coal. The structure will eliminate between $50,000 and $100,000 per year in natural-gas charges previously used to drive the moisture off the wet coal, allowing proper burning. Although this project still is in the interim stages of construction, it already has earned accolades from surrounding businesses for eliminating their view of the coal pile.
For the present, the University has found that the approach to energy savings that works the best is not a single-minded one, but a combination of different strategies and initiatives.
"Penn State is deeply committed to energy conservation. Our new buildings are designed to meet the latest standards, and we have multiple initiatives aimed at upgrading our older buildings. We hope this Penn State commitment will inspire our students to do the right thing and help us operate the University in an efficient manner," said Ford Stryker, deputy associate vice president for OPP and manager of the finance and business environmental strategy.
Photos, including high-resolution versions, are available on the Web at http://live.psu.edu/still_life/2004_08_12_energy/index.html