consumption and demand comparisons of hvac systems

Transforming Source Energy

© 2015 SEG,LLC www.SEGcorporation.com1

CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND COMPARISONS FOR A MODEL BUILDING

Model Building with Energy Usage in Various Locations HVAC Size 160 tons Educational Facility Two Stories Stipulated Design Using Trane Trace 700 at Five(5) Locations

Tulsa, Oklahoma Panama City, Florida Vandenberg AFB, California Colorado Springs, Colorado Austin, Texas



OBJECTIVES

Demonstrate varying energy needs for an identical model building at diverse locations.

Quantify the reduced energy consumption and demand needs for a geothermal HVAC system at diverse locations.

Compare demand reductions at diverse locations Compare varying bore length requirements at diverse

locations for the identical model building.



DATA PACKAGE

6 Graphs per location comparing Electronically Commutated Motor (ECM) Geothermal System Traditional Split System (Gas heat and electric cooling) Electric Heat Pump System



DATA PACKAGE CONT.

Graph Set Includes: Average Monthly Consumption (kWh) Average Monthly Consumption (kWh) with Average Outside Air

Temperature (OAT) Average Monthly Consumption (kWh) Reduction using a

Geothermal System Average Monthly Electric Peak Demand (kW) Average Monthly Electric Demand (kW) with Average Outside Air

Temperature (OAT) Average Monthly Electric Demand Reduction (kW) using a

Geothermal System



TULSA, OKLAHOMA

Gas converted to kWh



TULSA, OKLAHOMA

January

February

March

AprilMay June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

December

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Energy Consumption with Average OAT (Tulsa, OK)

ECM Geothermal System Air to Air Heat Pump Baseline Split System Average Monthly OAT (deg F)

Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)

Aver

age

mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)




TULSA, OKLAHOMA

January February March April May June July August September October November December0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Ground Source Consumption Reduction vs Split and HP

Tulsa, Oklahoma GEO vs Split Tulsa, Oklahoma GEO vs HP

Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)




TULSA, OKLAHOMA


50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Peak Electric Demand (Tulsa, OK)

ECM Geothermal System Baseline Split System Air to Air Heat Pump

Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)



TULSA, OKLAHOMA

January

February

March

AprilMay June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

December

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Peak Electric Demand with Average OAT (Tulsa, OK)

ECM Geothermal System Baseline Split System Air to Air Heat Pump Average Monthly OAT (deg F)

Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)



TULSA, OKLAHOMA


50

100

150

200

250

Ground Source Electric Demand Reduction vs HP and Traditional Split


Dem

and

Redu

ction

(kW

)



PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA


10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Energy Consumption (Panama City, Florida)

ECM Geothermal System Air to Air Heat Pump Baseline Split System

Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)

)





January

February

March

AprilMay June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

December

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Energy Consumption with Average OAT (Panama City, Florida)


Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)






5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Panama City, Florida GEO vs split Panama City, Florida GEO vs HP

Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)






50

100

150

200

250

300

Peak Electric Demand (Panama City, Florida)


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)




January

February

March

AprilMay June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

December

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Peak Electric Demand with Average OAT (Panama City, Florida)


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)





20

40

60

80

100

120


Panama City, Florida GEO vs split Panama City, Florida GEO vs HP

Dem

and

Redu

ction

(kW

)



COLORADO SPRINGS, CO


10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Energy Consumption (Colorado Springs, Colorado)


Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)






10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Energy Consumption with Average OAT (Colorado Springs, Colorado)


Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)






5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000


Colorado Springs, Colorado GEO vs split Colorado Springs, Colorado GEO vs HP

Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)






50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Peak Electric Demand (Colorado Springs, Colorado)


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)





50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Peak Electric Demand with Average OAT (Colorado Springs, Colorado)


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)





50

100

150

200

250


Colorado Springs, Colorado GEO vs split Colorado Springs, Colorado GEO vs HP

Dem

and

Redu

ction

(kW

)



VANDENBERG AFB, CA


5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Energy Consumption (Vandenberg AFB, California)


Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)




VANDENBERG AFB, CA


10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Energy Consumption with Average OAT (Vandenberg AFB, California)


Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)




VANDENBERG AFB, CA


2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000


Vandenberg AFB, California GEO vs split Vandenberg AFB, California GEO vs HP

Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)




VANDENBERG AFB, CA


20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Peak Electric Demand (Vandenberg AFB, California)


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)



VANDENBERG AFB, CA

January

February

March

AprilMay June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

December

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Peak Electric Demand with Average OAT (Vandenberg AFB, CA


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)



VANDENBERG AFB, CA


50

100

150

200

250



Dem

and

Redu

ction

(kW

)




AUSTIN, TEXAS


10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Energy Consumption (Austin, TX)


Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)




AUSTIN, TEXAS


10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Energy Consumption with Average OAT (Austin, Texas)


Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)




AUSTIN, TEXAS


5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Austin, Texas GEO vs. split Austin, Texas GEO vs HP

Cons

umpti

on (k

Wh)




AUSTIN, TEXAS


50

100

150

200

250

300

Peak Electric Demand (Austin, Texas)


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)



AUSTIN, TEXAS

January

February

March

AprilMay June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

December

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Peak Electric Demand with Average OAT (Austin, Texas)


Peak

Dem

and

(kW

)

Aver

age

Mon

thly

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)



AUSTIN, TEXAS


20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Austin, Texas GEO vs split Austin, Texas GEO vs HP

Dem

and

Redu

ction

(kW

)




PEAK DEMAND COMPARISON

Panam

a City

, Florid

a

Colorado Sp

rings,

Colorado

Vanden

berg AFB

, Calif

ornia

Tulsa

, Okla

homa

Austin, Tex

as0

50

100

150

200

250

Ground Source Peak Electric Demand Reduction vs HP and Split

Peak Split DeltaPeak HP Delta

Dem

and

(kW

)

JulyJuly

July

February

September

September

July

February

July

January



BORE LENGTH

Tulsa

, Okla

haoma

Panam

a City

, Florid

a

Colorado Sp

rings,

Colorado

Vanden

berg AFB

, Calif

ornia

Austin, Tex

as0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Total Required Bore Feet For Each Location (Two Pass HDPE U-Bend)

Total bore feet

Feet

*63 oF

*77 oF

*51 oF*62 oF

*71 oF

* DEEP EARTH TEMPERATURE



CONCLUSIONS Significant reductions in Consumption (kWh) and Demand (kW) by

using Geothermal sourced HVAC systems Energy usage is vastly different at various locations in an

identically modeled building Bore length requirements vary considerably depending on location Difference in energy usage and bore length is influenced by

Latitude Elevation Climate Deep earth temperature Geology (conductivity)

Efficient design using equipment and control programs with site source energy selection should be employed to shorten bore length requirements

consumption and demand comparisons of hvac systems

Engineering