1 / 19

Pinnacle Homes T-Mass Wall Performance and Rate Structure Analysis

Pinnacle Homes T-Mass Wall Performance and Rate Structure Analysis. ConSol. Introduction. T-Mass Wall Performance and Peak Impact Rate Structure Analysis Next Steps. Center for Energy Research. Pinnacle. HOMES. Participants and Partners. BIRA Team Pinnacle Homes

bryce
Télécharger la présentation

Pinnacle Homes T-Mass Wall Performance and Rate Structure Analysis

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. Pinnacle HomesT-Mass Wall Performance and Rate Structure Analysis ConSol

  2. Introduction • T-Mass Wall Performance and Peak Impact • Rate Structure Analysis • Next Steps

  3. Center for Energy Research Pinnacle HOMES Participants and Partners • BIRA Team • Pinnacle Homes • University of Nevada at Las Vegas • Paragon Consulting

  4. The Vinings-- Pinnacle HomesLas Vegas, NV • A highly energy efficient “T-Mass” insulated concrete exterior wall system developed by the Dow Corporation and developed by Precast Technologies. • -A CopperSun solar water heating system looped into the heating system minimizing natural gas consumption for hot water heating. • -A Noritz “tankless” hot water heater. • -Approximately 400 square feet of roof-mounted photovoltaic panels rated at 5.28KW manufactured by GE Energy to generate electricity during low usage periods. Electricity will be fed back onto Nevada Power's grid, helping offset energy use. • -A 19 SEER water-cooled air conditioning condensing unit manufactured by Freus. • -Energy efficient vinyl framed windows with Low “E” glass. • -PolarPly reflective roof sheeting. • -Energy Star rated light fixtures with highly efficient fluorescent bulbs. • -Energy Star rated GE appliances.

  5. Construction Baseline house (left) and ZEH house (right) during construction Erection of T-Mass walls

  6. Plan view of Baseline house(ZEH is mirror image)

  7. T-Mass Wall • Syrofoam with connectors made of glass and vinyl ester polymer with low thermal conductivity • 2 inches of syrofoam extruded polystyrene and polyiosocyanurate rigid board insulation • Rated at R-value of 5 hr-ft2-F/BTU per inch • Cross section of T-Mass Wall • Density of 130 lb/ft3; specific heat of 0.22 Btu/lboF • Conductivity of 1.04 Btu/hr-ft2-F per inch • Outer wall is 2” of concrete; Inner wall is 4” of concrete

  8. Simulated Average Wall Loads • Both walls are rated at R-12 • Average reduction in wall load of approximately 40% • Stick frame would require an overall R-18 for the same performance (with R-30-35 rated insulation)

  9. Simulated Total Peak Loads • 10% reduction between T-Mass and Normal Walls • 0.5 Ton smaller HVAC unit • Peak Load shift to 5 or 6 PM vs. 3 or 4 PM • Stable indoor ambient temperature

  10. Exterior vs. Interior Wall Temperature: ZEH vs. Baseline

  11. Real Usage Data: ZEH vs. Baseline T-mass walls reduces total power use and shifts the peak cooling load to later when electricity costs are reduced

  12. Monthly Average Daily Temperature Range • Average interior temperature fluctuations of north and west walls: October 2005 to February 2006 • ZEH wall vary by 1-2 degrees • Normal walls vary from 3 – 7.45 degrees

  13. Nevada PowerResidential vs. TOU Rates

  14. Simulated Peak vs. Non-Peak kWh UseJuly - August • 75° set point • ZEH shifts load to off-peak hours • ZEH uses 14.5% less energy overall

  15. Energy Rate Comparison • TOU rate results in higher monthly costs • ZEH offsets peak, but not enough to overcome cost of the TOU structure

  16. Annual Cooling Energy Use Comparison • TOU rates are lower in the winter months • Impact over the entire year are more significant • With the same cooling systems, a 10% reduction due to walls alone

  17. Annual Cooling Energy Cost • TOU costs more for either home on an annual basis • ZEH costs is $1 more per year • On a cooling schedule (e.g., programmable thermostat), the ZEH home would have a greater savings • If Nevada Power discontinued TOU fee of $1.30/month, costs would be less for the entire year (even with the AC running unscheduled)

  18. Next Steps • On-going analysis of wall performance • Analysis of contribution of foundation slab and ground coupling (e.g., impact of perimeter insulation) • Comparison of performance to Borrego Springs, CA

  19. Conclusions and Next Steps • T-Mass walls reduced total power use and shift peak loads • Properly managed energy conservation (e.g., setback thermostats) can multiply the rate structure impact • TOU rate can be made an effective energy conservation tool when combined with an aggressive consumer program including setback thermostats and reduced program fees

More Related