Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Absorption Chillers
Southern California Gas Company
New Buildings Institute
Advanced Design Guideline Series
GARD Analytics:
Robert Henninger, Jason Glazer, and Mike Witte
Heat
High
Pressure
Vapor
Condenser
Work
Compressor
Evaporator
Low
Pressure
Vapor
Heat
have the following characteristics: chillers can be used to produce chilled water for air
conditioning and for cooling process water, and are
♦ High demand charges
available in capacities from 7.5 to 1,500 tons.
♦ Coincident need for air conditioning and
heating
Double Effect
♦ Maintenance and service requirements are
acceptable to building owner The desire for higher efficiencies in absorption chillers
led to the development of double-effect LiBr/H2O
systems. The double-effect chiller differs from the
B. Types single-effect in that there are two condensers and two
generators to allow for more refrigerant boil-off from
Absorption chillers are generally classified as direct- or the absorbent solution. Figure 3 shows the double effect
indirect-fired, and as single, double - or triple-effect. In absorption cycle on a Pressure-Temperature diagram.
direct-fired units, the heat source can be gas or some The higher temperature generator uses the externally-
other fuel that is burned in the unit. Indirect-fired units supplied steam to boil the refrigerant from the weak
use steam or some other transfer fluid that brings in heat absorbent. The refrigerant vapor from the high
from a separate source, such as a boiler or heat temperature generator is condensed and the heat
recovered from an industrial process. Hybrid systems, produced is used to provide heat to the low temperature
which are relatively common with absorption chillers, generator.
combine gas systems and electric systems for load
optimization and flexibility. Pressure
Single Effect
Temperature HIGH-TEMPERATURE
HIGH-TEMPERATURE GENERATOR
CONDENSOR
The single-effect “cycle” refers to the transfer of fluids
through the four major components of the refrigeration
LOW-TEMPERATURE
machine - evaporator, absorber, generator and CONDENSOR
condenser, as shown in the Pressure-Temperature LOW-TEMPERATURE
GENERATOR
diagram in Figure 2.
EVAPORATOR
Pressure
ABSORBER
Temperature
CONDENSOR GENERATOR
Figure 3 - Double-Effect Absorption Refrigeration
Cycle
HEAT
These systems use gas-fired combustors or high pressure
EXCHANGER steam as the heat source. Double-effect absorption
chillers are used for air-conditioning and process
cooling in regions where the cost of electricity is high
relative to natural gas. Double-effect absorption chillers
EVAPORATOR ABSORBER
are also used in applications where high pressure steam,
Figure 2 - Single-Effect Absorption Refrigeration Cycle such as district heating, is readily available. Although
the double-effect machines are more efficient than
Single-effect LiBr/H2O absorption chillers use low single-effect machines, they have a higher initial
pressure steam or hot water as the heat source. The manufacturing cost. There are special materials
water is able to evaporate and extract heat in the considerations, because of increased corrosion rates
evaporator because the system is under a partial (higher operating temperatures than single-effect
vacuum. The thermal efficiency of single-effect machines), larger heat exchanger surface areas, and
absorption systems is low. Although the technology is more complicated control systems.
sound, the low efficiency has inhibited the cost
competitiveness of single-effect systems. Most new
single-effect machines are installed in applications
where waste heat is readily available. Single-effect
Triple Effect depend on the nature of the cooling load, and the
characteristics of the local gas and electric rates, but
The triple-effect cycles are the next logical improvement
there are many applications where a hybrid system is
over the double-effect. Triple-effect absorption chillers
advantageous. This is especially true for large facilities
are under development, as the next step in the evolution
with sophisticated energy management personnel who
of absorption technology. Figure 4 shows the triple
can optimize system performance and energy costs.
effect absorption cycle on a Pressure-Temperature
diagram. The refrigerant vapor from the high and The hybrid plant crystallizes the concept of a system
medium temperature generators is condensed and the design that maximizes the flexibility of “time
heat is used to provide heat to the next lower dependent” energy selection. The use of absorption
temperature generator. The refrigerant from all three chillers eliminates the high incremental cost of
condensers flows to an evaporator where it absorbs electricity. The hybrid approach will play a larger role in
more heat. cooling options as utility rate structures continue to be
more variable.
Pressure
HIGH-TEMPERATURE
Temperature
CONDENSOR C. Efficiencies
Efficiencies of absorption chillers are described in terms
MIDDLE-TEMPERATURE
CONDENSOR
of coefficient of performance (COP), which is defined
MIDDLE-TEMPERATURE
as the refrigeration effect, divided by the net heat input
LOW-TEMPERATURE GENERATOR (in comparable units such as kBtu).
CONDENSOR
LOW-TEMPERATURE
Single-effect absorption chillers have COPs of
GENERATOR approximately 0.6-0.8 out of an ideal 1.0. Since the
COPs are less than one, the single-effect chillers are
ABSORBER normally used in applications that recover waste heat
such as waste steam from power plants or boilers.
Figure 4 - Triple-Effect Absorption Cycle Double-effect absorption chillers have COPs of
approximately 1.0 out of an ideal 2.0. While not yet
Two different triple-effect absorption chiller cycles are commercially available, prototype triple effect
capable of substantial performance improvements over absorption chillers have calculated COPs from 1.4 to
equivalent double-effect cycles. One uses two 1.6.
condensers and two absorbers to achieve the triple
effect. A second, the double condenser coupled (DCC) The COP metric is also applied to electric chillers.
triple-effect, uses three condensers as well as a third However, since COP is based on site energy, it is not
condenser subcooler. good for comparing gas and electric chiller efficiencies.
Triple-effect systems offer the possibility of thermal A better metric is the Resource COP, which accounts for
efficiencies equal to those of electrical chillers. The the source to site efficiency of the fuel, accounting for
cost, however, will be higher, so system cost- electricity generation and transmission losses. Figure 5
effectiveness will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case shows typical values for both electric chillers and
basis. The higher efficiency levels would open wider absorption chillers.
markets for absorption chillers.
Chiller Site COP Source Resource
Hybrid Systems -to-Site COP
Factor
Hybrid systems capture the best of both gas and electric
usage by installing an absorption system in parallel with Electric 2.0 - 6.1 0.27 0.54 - 1.65
an electric vapor compression system. In a typical Absorption 0.65 - 1.2 0.91 0.59 - 1.1
hybrid system, the electricity-driven chiller takes
advantage of the lowest time-of-use costs during off-
peak hours. The absorption chiller is used as the primary
source during the on-peak hours, with the vapor
compression chiller used for the remainder of the load,
as needed. The specifics of any hybrid system design
Figure 5 - Site vs. Resource COP A direct-fired absorption system can supply hot water in
addition to chilled water if:
♦ equipped with an auxiliary heat exchanger
D. Benefits
♦ the hot water circuit of the auxiliary heat
The primary energy benefit of gas cooling systems is exchanger includes the necessary control
reduction in operating costs by avoiding peak electric devices.
demand charges and time-of-day rates. The use of gas
absorption chillers eliminates the high incremental cost If the equipment is to provide heating as well as cooling,
of electric cooling. then a true comparison of equipment cost and annual
maintenance costs between an electric and gas system
The restructuring of the electric utility industry adds must consider the electric centrifugal chiller plus a
significant complexity and uncertainty to the HVAC boiler. The results of such a comparison should show the
design and operation. The key is operational flexibility. direct-fired absorption chiller annualized costs,
Gas cooling systems eliminate some of the variability including maintenance, operating, and first costs, to be
associated with electric rate structures, while a hybrid less than or roughly equal to those of an electric chiller
system maximizes the flexibility of an “all- energy ” and boiler.
plant.
Natural gas cooling systems have greater resource E. Limitations
efficiency than similar electric systems. Typical
electricity generation and distribution results in an Cost is the primary constraint on the widespread
approximately 65% - 75% loss in the initial energy adoption of absorption chiller systems. The low thermal
resource of the fuel. In contrast, only about 5% to 10% efficiency of single-effect absorption systems has made
of the fuel resource is lost with a gas system. them non-competitive except in situations with readily
Additionally, electricity costs per Btu are typically three available free waste heat. Even double effect systems are
to four times the cost per Btu for electricity, so the cost not cost-effective in many applications. Although
of a unit of output (refrigeration) can often be lower absorption chillers can be quite economical in the right
with an absorption unit. situation, their exact economics must be worked out on a
project-by-project basis.
Utilizing waste heat that would otherwise be unused
greatly increases the cost-effectiveness of the systems, Absorption systems also require greater pump energy
compared to consuming gas directly. than electric chillers. The size of condenser water
pumps is generally a function of the flow rate per unit
Gas absorption systems have several non-energy
cooling capacity. Cooling technologies with lower
benefits over conventional electric systems including:
COPs typically require a significantly higher condenser
♦ Elimination of the use of CFC and HCFC water flow rate than those technologies with higher
refrigerants COPs, therefore requiring larger pumps. Similarly,
absorption chillers require larger cooling tower capacity
♦ Quiet, vibration-free operation
than electric chillers, due to the larger volume of water.
♦ Lower pressure systems with no large rotating
components
♦ High reliability
♦ Low maintenance
The contribution that gas cooling technologies can make
to the goal of improved emissions is substantial. Natural
gas-powered air-conditioning equipment offers
substantial advantages to the environment in regard to
CFCs and HCFCs, because they are not used in the
absorption cycle. Legislative activities are focused on
pushing the nation toward energy-efficient technologies
that reduce harmful emissions. While gas-fired chillers
produce emissions at the site, combustion efficiencies
can be high and harmful emissions comparatively low
for a well-operated absorption unit.
♦ APLV
Chiller Chilled Mfgr. Part
Load (%) Water Rated Load
Coefficient of Performance (COP) Return COP Hours
Temp (ºF) (%)
The performance of gas cooling equipment is usually
rated in terms of COP, defined as the cooling output, or 100 85 A 17
refrigeration effect, in Btu, divided by the energy input,
in Btu. This same metric is applied to electric chillers, 75 78.75 B 39
but since it is based on site energy, it is not good for 50 72.5 C 33
comparing gas and electric chiller efficiencies.
25 66.25 D 11
Gas absorption chillers, as well as electric chillers, are
rated to Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Figure 7 - IPVL Calculation Assumptions
ARI-550-92 conditions as listed below:
COP ratings A, B, C and D at each part load condition
Chilled Water Conditions:
are obtained from the chiller manufacturer and should be
♦ 44ºF chilled water supply temperature derived from actual chiller tests. Note that the
calculation allows for a 2.5ºF reduction in the entering
♦ 54ºF chilled water return temperature cooling water temperature for every 10% drop in
♦ 2.4 gpm/ton chilled water flow cooling load. A lower entering cooling water
temperature corresponds to part load (reduced) cooling
Water Cooled Condensers: demand, that results from a drop in ambient temperature.
♦ 85ºF condenser water supply temperature Although IPLV is a useful way to compare different
♦ 95ºF condenser water return temperature manufacturers’ chiller models, it probably doesn’t
represent actual operating conditions. For applications
♦ 3.0 gpm/ton condenser water flow where cooling load is not significantly affected by
Air Cooled Condensers: ambient temperature conditions, (e.g., when cooling
load is dominated by internal gains) this estimate of part
♦ 95ºF air supply temperature load performance may not provide accurate results.
♦ 20ºF temperature differential between air Chiller performance should be modeled to actual
supply and condensing refrigerant building load profiles tailored to site-specific ambient
conditions.
♦ 2ºF refrigeration system loss to the condenser
D. Economics/Cost Effectiveness Taxes - applicable taxes and franchise fees, which can
be over 10% in many areas.
The economics of gas-fueled cooling systems vs.
electric chillers are driven by the additional investment Special Rates - for gas cooling equipment or special
cost and several factors influencing operating cost, load-management electric rates are sometimes available.
including: Using average electric and gas costs is rarely adequate
♦ relative costs of the electricity and gas, and to capture the cost of operating cooling equipment,
their billing structures, especially when the rate structure includes demand
charges or declining blocks. The marginal electric price
♦ relative performance characteristics, for cooling has a larger demand component relative to
♦ operating characteristics, and usage, which drives up the unit price. The details of the
actual electric rates must be considered in the total
♦ relative maintenance costs. analysis of chiller system operating costs.
The first three factors are discussed in the following
sections and combined to produce estimates of Annual
Performance Characteristics
Energy Savings. Annual operating savings include an
energy component and a comparison of O&M costs. When comparing gas and electric cooling options there
are several equipment performance characteristics that
must be considered:
Energy Rates and Billing Structure
♦ Electric chiller seasonal COP and peak load
Energy rates and billing structure have a major impact COP,
on economic evaluations of gas versus electric cooling
equipment. Energy rates include: ♦ Gas cooling equipment seasonal COP,
to realize an acceptable payback for most business’ • McQuay Absorption Chillers, 100 to 1,500 ton
requirements.
• York Absorption Chillers, 100 to 1,500 ton
• Dunham-Bush, 100 to 1,400 tons
Estimating Annual Energy Savings
To estimate annual energy savings, the performance
characteristics of each chiller alternative must be G. Equipment Installations
carefully compared. Gas absorption cooling equipment is available for
The customary approach to analyzing chiller economics commercial facilities including hotels, office buildings,
has been to employ “equivalent full load hour” warehouses, supermarkets, retail outlets and institutions
methodology. Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) are including hospitals, nursing homes, and schools.
defined as the total cooling load supplied over the Following are several examples of gas absorption chiller
cooling load duration (ton/hours) divided by the cooling installations:
equipment capacity (tons). Part load operation is
modified to obtain the equivalent of running at full load.
While this method does not reflect the efficiency of part
AT&T Office Building, St. Louis, Missouri
load operation, it does simplify economic comparison.
Since the economics of gas cooling are highly dependent
on operating hours, accurate analysis requires a detailed
building simulation. A comprehensive analysis should
be done with an hourly simulation model, such as DOE-
2, HAP, or TRACE, which predicts when, where and
how much cooling is required for the building.
The current publicly available version of DOE-2.1E
contains performance simulation modules for:
♦ direct-fired absorption chillers,
♦ natural gas absorption chillers, and
♦ gas absorption air conditioners and heat pumps.
The 421,000 sq. ft. office building and 255,000 sq. ft.
E. Sizes warehouse facility existing equipment consisted of three
York steam absorbers and a York reciprocating chiller.
Commercially proven absorption cooling systems,
ranging in size from 3 to 1,700 tons are widely In the early 1990s, a 1,000-ton Hitachi* ParaFlowTM
available. These systems come as stand-alone chillers or direct-fired absorption chiller, a 600-ton York HCFC-
as chillers with integral heating systems. The following 123 electric centrifugal chiller and a BAC plate-and-
sections provide manufacturer specific information and frame 300-ton heat exchanger for use as a water
examples of installations. economizer were installed.
"The combined maintenance and energy savings of
F. Equipment Manufacturers $237,000 per year exceeded our expectations," says
Vince Behan, senior plant engineer.
There are several manufacturers of absorption chillers,
including:
FERC Office Building, Washington, D. C.
• Robur Single-Effect, 3 to 25 ton
• Yazaki LiBr Double-Effect, 20 to 100 ton
• McQuay LiBr Double-Effect, 20 to 100 ton
• Carrier Absorption Chillers, 100 to 1,700 ton
• Trane Absorption Chillers, 100 to 2,000 ton
Gas absorption chillers were compared to the following San Francisco 2,883
chiller options: Chicago 2,941
♦ Standard efficiency electric screw or Washington DC 3,734
centrifugal
Los Angeles 4,777
♦ High efficiency electric screw or centrifugal
Atlanta 5,038
♦ Indirect-fired single effect absorption
San Diego 5,223
The analysis is structured to provide “typical” values
Riverside 5,295
that can be used as a screening tool during schematic
design of a building or as guidance on equipment Fort Worth 6,557
efficiency issues for voluntary programs or energy code Phoenix 8,425
bodies. The results of a detailed energy and rates
analysis, for seven building types in ten cities, have been Miami 9,474
distilled down to a series of graphs.
Figure 8 - Cities used for Cooling Analysis
The cities and buildings are representative of the range
of climates and building occupancies where gas cooling Figure 9 shows the building types included in the
options would be used. The list of cities, sorted by analysis, along with the building size in square feet, and
Cooling Degree Day (CDD) is provided in Figure 8. the cooling equipment size in tons. The range of
Information on building type and size are provided in equipment sizes represents the variation in cooling load
Figure 9. The economic analysis is of course dependent for the cities analyzed. The sizing of the cooling plant
upon gas and electric rates. Building descriptions and follows ASHRAE 90.1R ECB guidelines with a 20 %
city specific utility rates are provided in the Appendix. oversizing margin.
The results are graphed for various gas rates and various
electric rates. Due to the complexities of the interactions Type Size Cooling
between fuel type usage and utility rates, it was not (Sq Ft) (tons)*
possible to develop “typical” gas-to-electric cost results.
These graphs can be used, as will be shown by example Medium Office 49,000 100 - 143
in the following chapter, to determine relative increase Large Office 160,000 408 - 573
in gas consumption and relative decrease in electric
Hospital 272,000 384 - 519
consumption, when comparing a gas chiller to an
electric chiller. The results of separate fuel type analysis Hotel 315,000 645 - 891
can then be combined to provide a complete picture of Out-Patient 49,000 90 - 111
the savings opportunities. Clinic
Secondary 50,000 90 - 205
School
Large Retail 164,000 165 - 393
Each of the lines on the graphs represents the energy The slope of the line represents the rate of change in
savings potential of the prototype building in one of the annual energy cost savings for each increment or
ten cities studied. Markers on each line indicate current decrement in the marginal cost of energy. In the
local gas and electric rates for each city. By following Chicago example, if gas were to increase to $0.45 per
the line on the graph, the results can be extrapolated to therm, a 20% increase, the energy cost savings would
different utility rates. decrease to approximately $5,500 per year. Conversely,
if the electric rate increased to $0.20, the savings would
increase to $26,500 per year.
Annual Energy Cost Savings Graphs The cases shown on this graph can also be used to
Two sets of energy cost savings are calculated for each estimate savings for other cities with comparable
building type. One is for a range of marginal gas costs climates. For example, the Chicago line would also be
and a fixed marginal electric cost. The other is for a reasonably representative of Milwaukee or Detroit or
range of marginal electric costs based on a fixed Omaha. The gas costs in these other locations may be
marginal gas cost. different than Chicago, but by entering the graph at the
x-axis value that represents the costs in the other
The top graph in Figure 12 is typical of the annual location, an estimate of the savings can be obtained.
energy cost savings vs. marginal gas cost graphs. The
bottom graph is for the same conditions showing the
energy cost savings vs. marginal electric costs. These Cost Effectiveness Graphs
particular results are for the medium office building
prototype. The comparison is between a gas absorption This section presents the cost effectiveness graphs
chiller and a standard efficiency electric screw chiller. developed for various utility rates and locations.
The horizontal x-axis of these graphs is the marginal The SIR is used as the figure of merit for cost
cost of gas, in dollars per therm, or the marginal cost of effectiveness, as described in Chapter 4. It is the ratio
electricity, in dollars per kWh. Marginal electric costs of the life cycle cost (LCC) savings to the incremental
are the costs charged, under the local utility rate first cost, as shown in the following equation:
structure, for the kilo-Watt/hours that are saved by the LCC Savings
use of the gas absorption chiller. For the case of gas SIR =
rates, marginal cost represents the costs charged per Incremental Cost
therm for the increase in gas consumption. The marginal
If the LCC savings are greater than the incremental cost,
cost does not include the utility basic service charges or
then the SIR will be greater than one and the investment
other charges that are common to both equipment
is a sound one. Thus, any point on the graph that is
scenarios.
above the 1.00 point on the vertical axis is a good
The vertical y-axis shows the annual energy cost investment.
savings, in dollars per year, between the base equipment
Calculating the LCC savings can seem complicated to
and the gas absorption chiller.
anybody unfamiliar with present worth analysis
Energy Cost Savings for various Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Medium Office
$16,000
$14,000
Chicago
$12,000
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$10,000
Miami
Wash DC
$8,000
LA City
Riverside
$6,000
Phoenix
San Diego
$4,000
San Francisco
$2,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Medium Office
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
Chicago
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$30,000 Atlanta
Ft. Worth
$25,000
Miami
Wash DC
$20,000
LA City
$15,000 Riverside
Phoenix
$10,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$5,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 12 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Medium Office
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Office
$80,000
$70,000
Chicago
$60,000
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$50,000
Miami
Wash DC
$40,000
LA City
$30,000 Riverside
Phoenix
$10,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Office
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000 Chicago
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Atlanta
$120,000 Ft. Worth
Miami
$100,000
Wash DC
$80,000 LA City
Riverside
$60,000
Phoenix
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 13 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Large Office
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hospital
$120,000
$100,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$80,000
Ft. Worth
Miami
Wash DC
$60,000
LA City
Riverside
$40,000 Phoenix
San Diego
San Francisco
$20,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hospital
$600,000
$500,000
Chicago
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$400,000 Atlanta
Ft. Worth
Miami
$300,000 Wash DC
LA City
Riverside
$200,000
Phoenix
San Diego
San Francisco
$100,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 14 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Hospital
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hotel
$70,000
$60,000
Chicago
$50,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$40,000 Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$30,000
Riverside
Phoenix
$20,000
San Diego
San Francisco
$10,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hotel
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000 Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$200,000 Wash DC
LA City
$150,000 Riverside
Phoenix
$50,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 15 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Hotel
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Clinic
$25,000
$20,000
Chicago
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Atlanta
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Clinic
$70,000
$60,000
Chicago
$50,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$40,000 Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$30,000
Riverside
Phoenix
$20,000
San Diego
San Francisco
$10,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 16 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Clinic
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - School
$12,000
$10,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$8,000
Ft. Worth
Miami
$6,000 Wash DC
LA City
Riverside
$4,000
Phoenix
San Diego
San Francisco
$2,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - School
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000 Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 17 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for School
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Retail
$45,000
$40,000
Chicago
$35,000
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Riverside
$15,000
Phoenix
$10,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$5,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Retail
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000 Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$80,000 Wash DC
LA City
$60,000 Riverside
Phoenix
$20,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 18 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Large Retail
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Medium Office
$14,000
$12,000
Chicago
$10,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$8,000 Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$6,000
Riverside
Phoenix
$4,000
San Diego
San Francisco
$2,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Medium Office
$40,000
$30,000 Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
Miami
$20,000 Wash DC
LA City
Riverside
Phoenix
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 19 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for Medium Office
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Office
$70,000
$60,000
Chicago
$50,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$40,000 Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$30,000
Riverside
Phoenix
$20,000
San Diego
San Francisco
$10,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Office
$160,000
$120,000 Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
Miami
$80,000 Wash DC
LA City
Riverside
Phoenix
$40,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 20 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for Large Office
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hospital
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000 Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hospital
$500,000
$400,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$300,000
Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$200,000 Riverside
Phoenix
San Diego
$100,000 San Francisco
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 21 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for Hospital
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hotel
$50,000
$40,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$30,000
Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$20,000 Riverside
Phoenix
San Diego
$10,000 San Francisco
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Hotel
$300,000
$250,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$200,000
Ft. Worth
Miami
$150,000 Wash DC
LA City
Riverside
$100,000
Phoenix
San Diego
San Francisco
$50,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 22 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for Hotel
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Clinic
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$12,000
Ft. Worth
$10,000 Miami
Wash DC
$8,000 LA City
Riverside
$6,000 Phoenix
San Diego
$4,000
San Francisco
$2,000
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Clinic
$60,000
$50,000 Chicago
Atlanta
Ft. Worth
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$40,000
Miami
Wash DC
$30,000 LA City
Riverside
Phoenix
$20,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$10,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 23 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for Clinic
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - School
$10,000
$8,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$6,000
Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$4,000
Riverside
Phoenix
San Diego
$2,000 San Francisco
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - School
$30,000
$25,000
Chicago
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$20,000
Ft. Worth
Miami
$15,000 Wash DC
LA City
Riverside
$10,000 Phoenix
San Diego
San Francisco
$5,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 24 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for School
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Retail
$50,000
$40,000
Chicago
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Atlanta
Ft. Worth
$30,000
Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$20,000
Riverside
Phoenix
San Diego
$10,000
San Francisco
$0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs -
DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Retail
$140,000
$120,000
Chicago
$100,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$80,000 Miami
Wash DC
LA City
$60,000
Riverside
Phoenix
$40,000
San Diego
San Francisco
$20,000
$0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 25 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for Large Retail
$26,000
$24,000
$22,000 Chicago
$20,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
$16,000 Miami
Wash DC
$14,000
LA City
$12,000
Riverside
$10,000 Phoenix
$8,000 San Diego
$6,000 San Francisco
$4,000
$2,000
$0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 26 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Medium Office
$100,000
$90,000
Chicago
$80,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$70,000
Miami
$60,000 Wash DC
$50,000 LA City
Riverside
$40,000
Phoenix
$30,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$20,000
$10,000
$0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 27 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Large Office
$300,000
Chicago
$250,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
Miami
$200,000
Wash DC
LA City
$150,000
Riverside
Phoenix
$100,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$50,000
$0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 28 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Hospital
$280,000
Chicago
$240,000
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$200,000
Miami
$160,000 Wash DC
LA City
$120,000 Riverside
Phoenix
$40,000
$0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 29 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Hotel
$35,000
Chicago
$30,000
Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$25,000
Miami
Wash DC
$20,000
LA City
Riverside
$15,000
Phoenix
San Diego
$10,000
San Francisco
$5,000
$0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 30 - Energy Cost Savings Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Clinic
$20,000
$18,000
Chicago
$16,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$14,000
Miami
$12,000 Wash DC
$10,000 LA City
Riverside
$8,000
Phoenix
$6,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$4,000
$2,000
$0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 31 - Energy Cost Savings Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for School
$100,000
$90,000
Chicago
$80,000 Atlanta
Energy Cost Savings ($)
Ft. Worth
$70,000
Miami
$60,000 Wash DC
$50,000 LA City
Riverside
$40,000
Phoenix
$30,000 San Diego
San Francisco
$20,000
$10,000
$0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 32 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Large Retail
Figure 33 (continued) – SIR for DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Electric Chillers
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 34 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 35 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Medium Office, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 36 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 37 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Office, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
1.0 R iverside
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 38 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 39 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hospital, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 40 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 41 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hotel, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 42 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 43 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Clinic, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
1.0 R iverside
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 44 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for School, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 45 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for School, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 46 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 47 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Retail, DFDE vs. Std. Eff. Chiller
Figure 48 (continued) - SIR for DFDE vs. High Eff. Electric Chillers
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 49 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 50 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Medium Office, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 51 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 52 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Office, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 53 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
C hicago
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
C hicago
Equipment Cost per ton)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
SIR (LCC
M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
1.0 R iverside
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 54 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hospital, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
C hicago
M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
1.0 R iverside
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm)
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 55 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
SIR (LCC 2.0 M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
C hicago
Equipment Cost per ton)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 56 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hotel, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm)
Figure 57 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
SIR (LCC 2.0 M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 58 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Clinic, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 59 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for School, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
C hicago
Equipment Cost per ton)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 60 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for School, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 61 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)
Figure 62 - SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Retail, DFDE vs. High Eff. Chiller
Figure 63 (continued) - SIR for Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chillers
C hicago
Equipment Cost per ton)
Savings/Incremental
A tlanta
2.0 Ft.W orth
SIR (LCC
M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 64 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office,
Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller
C hicago
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
SIR (LCC
M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
1.0
All values are above 3.0. The measure is R iverside
cost-effective for these conditions. P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 65 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office,
Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0 All values are above 3.0. The measure is
P hoenix
cost-effective for these conditions.
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0 All values are above 3.0. The measure is
cost-effective for these conditions. P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0 P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
SIR (LCC 2.0 M iam i
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Ft.W orth
2.0 M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0 P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
R iverside
1.0
P hoenix
San D iego
San Francisco
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
A tlanta
Savings/Incremental
Ft.W orth
2.0
M iam i
SIR (LCC
W ash D C
LA C ity
0.0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )
Figure 70 - SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail,
Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller
Dallas/Ft. Worth Lone Star Gas General Service General Service 0 No Limit 48
Los Angeles City So. Cal. Gas GN-10 General Service 0 <20800 34-51
GN-20 General Service 20800 No Limit 34-48
G-AC Air Conditioning 0 No Limit 38
Los Angeles City LA Dept W & P A-1 (Rate A) Non TOU 0 <30 10 3
A-2 (Rate A) Non TOU 30 <500 5 18
A-3 (Rate C) TOU 500 No Limit 8 14
San Diego San Diego G & E A (No Demand) Non TOU 0 <20 14 0
AD (Demand Metered) Non TOU 20 500 9 10
AL-TOU TOU >500 No Limit 9 27
Notes:
1) Chiller costs from 1997 manufacturer's data, FOB price plus 20%
2) 15% cost premium for high efficiency electric screw chiller versus standard
screw chiller per ASHRAE 90.1 cost analysis.
3) 35% cost premium for high efficiency electric centrifugal chiller versus
standard centrifugal chiller per ASHRAE 90.1 cost analysis.
Year: 1 2 3 4 5
Energy Savings (escalated 4%/yr); $1,200 $1,248 $1,298 $1,350 $1,404
Maint. costs (escalated 2%/yr): ($150) ($153) ($156) ($159) ($162)
Annual totals: $1,051 $1,097 $1,145 $1,195 $1,246
( Sum of Annual totals: $5,734 )
cost escalation factors could be non-linear, or the tax Finally, it is assumed in this analysis that a decision
deductions for the operating and maintenance costs about the cost effectiveness of options is being made at
could be included. In addition, the first costs could be the time of new construction. For program designers
spread out over the years as loan payments and interest focusing on retrofit applications of these technologies,
cost deductions. All of these costs would be discounted additional first costs will need to be included. This is
back to present dollar values and summed to arrive at less of an issue when the change-out is due to equipment
the net present value, which compares the life cycle failure and replacement is required. In the case of
costs to the life cycle savings1. replacements for equipment that is still functioning, the
incremental first cost will be the full cost of the new
Analysis for different purposes will include both
equipment minus the salvage value of the equipment
different types of inputs as well as varying levels for the
removed. Obviously, the energy savings must be of
input types chosen. For example, while a commercial
much greater value to justify replacing equipment before
building owner is likely to be interested in the economic
the end of its useful life.
impacts within a relatively short time frame, e.g., 8-10
years, a state energy office is likely to be more As this discussion illustrates, a thorough economic
concerned with the societal economic impacts over a analysis of energy efficiency investments can require
much longer term, like 30 years for residential energy considerable thought and calculation. The scalar and
codes. A business owner, who is looking at energy SIR approach used throughout these Guidelines provide
efficiency investments relative to other business uses of a convenient method for simplifying the economic
her capital, might also feel that a discount rate of 15% analysis task. For many purposes, this will be sufficient,
reflects her value for future energy savings. On the provided the decision-makers who will be relying on this
other hand, an energy efficiency program planner or analysis understand its limitations.
energy code developer could justify a 0% discount rate
as representative of the future value of resource savings.
The table in Figure 73 provides guidance on selecting
between the range of potential scalars.
A more comprehensive economic analysis might also
consider measure interactions and analyze the impacts of
numerous building elements as a system. For example,
increasing the level of roof insulation can lead to the
ability to downsize the cooling equipment. Selection of
a gas chiller could potentially allow the downsizing of
the electric service drop and load center for the building.
The analysis in this Guideline did not include such
synergies because of the complication of identifying
situations in which the additional savings could be
expected.
Appendix section A described the base case buildings
that were used in the analysis for these Guidelines. A
more comprehensive, targeted analysis would begin with
an examination of these building descriptions to
determine whether they are representative of the location
of interest. The building design can greatly increase or
decrease the cost effectiveness of various measures. For
example, a base case office building with effective
daylighting, reducing internal gains from lighting
systems, and high performance glazing on the south, east
and west, may have a small enough cooling load that
high efficiency equipment will be less cost effective.
1
For a more in-depth description, see Plant Engineers and Managers
Guide to Energy Conservation, by Albert Thumann, Fairmont
Press, Lilburn, GA 1989.
Scalars for 8 year period Scalars for 15 year period Scalars for 30 year period
Discount
0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6%
Rates
0% 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.5 15.0 17.6 20.8 24.7 30.0 41.4 58.3 83.8
3% 7.0 7.7 8.4 9.1 11.9 13.9 16.2 19.0 19.6 25.9 35.0 48.3
5% 6.5 7.0 7.7 8.4 10.4 12.0 13.9 16.2 15.4 19.8 26.0 34.9
7% 6.0 6.5 7.1 7.7 9.1 10.4 12.0 13.9 12.4 15.5 19.9 26.0
9% 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.1 8.1 9.2 10.5 12.1 10.3 12.6 15.7 20.0
11% 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.5 7.2 8.1 9.3 10.6 8.7 10.4 12.8 15.9
13% 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.5 7.3 8.2 9.3 7.5 8.8 10.6 12.9
15% 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.6 5.8 6.5 7.4 8.3 6.6 7.6 9.0 10.8