Engineering Report Final 3-27-13

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
NewBrook Elementary School Page 2 Energy Improvement Study

Engineering Services of Vermont, LLC Final Report 3/27/2013
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?


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. Replacement of the existing oil fired boilers with new equipment.
2. Installation of a wood pellet boiler system
3. Geothermal HVAC system
4. Geothermal HVAC system coupled with a photovoltaic system to offset the
electrical consumption.


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.



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.



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


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: $272,000
(Refer Appendix 1 for construction estimate)

Estimated Annual Fuel Savings:

Estimated Annual Fuel Savings: 1,136 Gallons
Fuel Cost: $3.50 per Gallon
Estimated Fuel Cost Savings: $3,976

Simple Payback: 68.4 Years

Life Cycle Cost-Based on a 15 Year Study Period: $604,110
(Refer to Appendix 5 for detailed Life Cycle analysis)


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)


Fuel Cost: $240 per Ton
Estimated Fuel Cost Savings: $11,742




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

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.

(Refer Appendix 3 for construction estimate, includes geo-exchanger costs)

Estimated Annual Fuel Savings: $14,222




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.

Existing TOD
Demand
Projected Increase in
Demand
Projected Total
Demand
Month (KW) (KW) KW
Dec 26 38 64
Nov 24.8 30 55
Oct 25.2 24 49
Sept 24.4 14 39
Aug 18.4 0 18
July 16.4 0 16
June 24.8 0 25
May 26 18 44
April 28 26 54
Mar 27.6 36 64
Feb 29.2 42 72
Jan 30 45 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.

Estimated Implementation Cost:
Heat Pump System (See Alternative No.3) $789,525
(Refer Appendix 3 for construction estimate, includes geo-exchanger costs)

Solar System Cost Estimate $340,000
(Cost Estimate Provided by PV consultant,
Refer to Appendix 4)

Total Estimated Implementation Cost $ 1,129,525


Heating Fuel Savings $14,222
Electrical Energy Savings
(Energy Usage Savings only
$0.10/kwh at 124,000 kWh) $12,400

Total Savings $26,622


Life Cycle Cost-Based on a 15 Year Study Period: $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 11013 CLIENT NewBrook
SHEET NO. 1 OF
Project
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
Item Description Units Quantity Material Labor Total
Alternative No.1-New Oil Boilers to Replace Existing and Correct Existing Comfort Issues
A Preliminary Construction Estimate
1 Mechanical
Demolition Ls 2 $0.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
New Boilers GB-315-6 Ea 2 $6,000.00 $2,500.00 $17,000.00
Burners Ea 2 $1,500.00 $250.00 $3,500.00
Controls Ea 1 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
Breechings Ea 2 $1,000.00 $500.00 $3,000.00
Chimney Liner Ea 1 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00
Pumps Ea 3 $750.00 $250.00 $3,000.00
Wiring Ea 3 $250.00 $200.00 $1,350.00
Oil Piping Ea 2 $750.00 $250.00 $2,000.00
Interconnection Piping Lf 500 $15.00 $10.00 $12,500.00
Insulation Ls 1 $2,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,000.00
Boiler Comsbution Air System Ls 2 $1,000.00 $500.00 $3,000.00
Start-Up Ls 2 $0.00 $500.00 $1,000.00
Project Subtotal $63,350.00
2 Corrective Measures to Existing System
Replace Unit Ventilators Ea 11 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $55,000.00
Repiping and valves Ea 18000 $2.00 $1.00 $54,000.00
New Controls Sf 18000 $2.00 $1.00 $54,000.00
Wiring Ea 12 $750.00 $500.00 $15,000.00
Re-Balancing Ls 12 $0.00 $500.00 $6,000.00
Estimated MEP Subtotal $247,350.00
Recommended Contigency % 10.00% $24,735.00
ESTIMATED MEP TOTAL $272,085.00
Date: 2013-03-27
DWD
DWD
NewBrook Elem. School
128 Merchants Row, Suite 209 - PO Box 6562
Rutland, Vermont 05702-6562 (802)855-8091

APPENDIX 2

WOOD PELLET BOILER

ENGINEERING SERVICES OF VERMONT
Project NewBrook Elementray School
Date 3/27/2013
Prepared By Daniel W. Dupras, P.E.
WOOD PELLET ANALYSIS
Building Anaylsis Information
Calculated Heatloss 620000 BTUH
HDD 6800 DD
Temp. Difference 85 Delta T
CD Factor 0.61
Fuel Pellets Fuel Fuel Oil
Pellet Density 40 Lbs/CF Heat Content 138000 BTU/lb
Heat Content 8000 BTU/lb System Efficiency 75%
System Efficiency 85% Fuel Cost $3.50 per gallon
Fuel Cost.Ton $240.00 per Ton Yearly Estimate Use 7015.9 Gallons/Year
Yearly Estimate Use 106785.88 Lbs/Year
Tons/Year 53.4 Tons/Year
Monthly Usage Estimate % Tons Used Cost Monthly Usage Estimate% Gallons Used Cost
Jan 18.20% 9.7 $2,332.20 Jan 18.20% 1276.9 $4,469.12
Feb 16.60% 8.9 $2,127.17 Feb 16.60% 1164.6 $4,076.23
Mar 13.70% 7.3 $1,755.56 Mar 13.70% 961.2 $3,364.12
April 8.70% 4.6 $1,114.84 April 8.70% 610.4 $2,136.34
May 4.20% 2.2 $538.20 May 4.20% 294.7 $1,031.33
June 1.60% 0.9 $205.03 June 1.60% 112.3 $392.89
July 0.00% 0.0 $0.00 July 0.00% 0.0 $0.00
Aug 0.00% 0.0 $0.00 Aug 0.00% 0.0 $0.00
Sept 3.30% 1.8 $422.87 Sept 3.30% 231.5 $810.33
Oct 6.60% 3.5 $845.74 Oct 6.60% 463.0 $1,620.67
Nov 10.80% 5.8 $1,383.95 Nov 10.80% 757.7 $2,652.00
Dec 16.30% 8.7 $2,088.73 Dec 16.30% 1143.6 $4,002.56
100.00% 53.4 $12,814.31 100.00% 7015.9 $24,555.59
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
Project
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
Alternative No.2 - New Wood Pellet Boiler System to Replace Existing Oil Boilers
1 Mechanical
Demolition Ls 2 $0.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
New Wood Pellet Boiler Ea 1 $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $90,000.00
Pellet Silo 37 ton Ea 1 $25,000.00 $7,500.00 $32,500.00
Concrete Pad for Silo Ls 1 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
Pellet Auger Ls 1 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $3,500.00
Controls Ea 1 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $7,000.00
Breechings Ea 1 $1,000.00 $500.00 $1,500.00
UL 103HT chimney Ea 1 $7,500.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00
Pumps Ea 4 $750.00 $250.00 $4,000.00
Wiring Ea 6 $500.00 $200.00 $4,200.00
Interconnection Piping Lf 500 $15.00 $10.00 $12,500.00
Insulation Ls 1 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $7,000.00
Boiler Comsbution Air System Ls 1 $1,000.00 $500.00 $1,500.00
Start-Up Ls 2 $0.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
2 Corrective Measures to Existing System
Replace Unit Ventilators Ea 11 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $55,000.00
Repiping and valves Ea 18000 $2.00 $1.00 $54,000.00
New Controls Sf 18000 $2.00 $1.00 $54,000.00
Wiring Ea 12 $750.00 $500.00 $15,000.00
Re-Balancing Ls 12 $0.00 $500.00 $6,000.00
Recommended Contigency % 10% $36,620.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL $402,820.00
Date: 2013-03-27
DWD
DWD
Rutland, Vermont 05702-6562 (802)855-8091

APPENDIX 3

GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM

ENGINEERING SERVICES OF VERMONT
Project NewBrook Elementray School
Date 3/27/2013
Prepared By Daniel W. Dupras, P.E.
GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP ANALYSIS
Building Anaylsis Information
Calculated Heatloss 620000 BTUH
HDD 6800 DD
Temp. Difference 85 Delta T
CD Factor 0.61
Geothermal System Fuel Fuel Oil
COP 3.5 Heat Content 138000 BTU/gallon
Constant 3413 BTUH/KWH System Efficiency 75%
Effciency Factor 350% Fuel Cost $3.50 per gallon
Average Energy Cost $0.17 Cost/KWH Yearly Estimate Use 7015.9 Gallons/Year
Yearly Estimated Use 60,788.1 KWH/Year
Monthly Usage Estimate % KWH Cost Monthly Usage Estimate % Gallons Used Cost
Jan 18.20% 11063.4 $1,880.78 Jan 18.20% 1276.9 $4,469.12
Feb 16.60% 10090.8 $1,715.44 Feb 16.60% 1164.6 $4,076.23
Mar 13.70% 8328.0 $1,415.75 Mar 13.70% 961.2 $3,364.12
April 8.70% 5288.6 $899.06 April 8.70% 610.4 $2,136.34
May 4.20% 2553.1 $434.03 May 4.20% 294.7 $1,031.33
June 1.60% 972.6 $165.34 June 1.60% 112.3 $392.89
July 0.00% 0.0 $0.00 July 0.00% 0.0 $0.00
Aug 0.00% 0.0 $0.00 Aug 0.00% 0.0 $0.00
Sept 3.30% 2006.0 $341.02 Sept 3.30% 231.5 $810.33
Oct 6.60% 4012.0 $682.04 Oct 6.60% 463.0 $1,620.67
Nov 10.80% 6565.1 $1,116.07 Nov 10.80% 757.7 $2,652.00
Dec 16.30% 9908.5 $1,684.44 Dec 16.30% 1143.6 $4,002.56
100.00% 60788.1 $10,333.97 100.00% 7015.9 $24,555.59
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
Project
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
Alternative No.3 Geothermal System
1 Mechanical
Demoltion Ls 18000 $0.00 $0.75 $13,500.00
Geothemal Well System Ls 1 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 $300,000.00
Unit Ventilators and Heat Pumps Ea 16 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $144,000.00
3 ton Office Area Heat Pump Ea 1 $12,000.00 $3,000.00 $15,000.00
Piping Ls 18000 $5.00 $3.00 $144,000.00
Insulation Ls 18000 $0.50 $0.25 $13,500.00
Controls Ea 18000 $2.00 $1.00 $54,000.00
Wiring Ea 17 $750.00 $500.00 $21,250.00
Pumps Ea 2 $1,500.00 $500.00 $4,000.00
Start-Up Ls 17 $0.00 $500.00 $8,500.00
Recommended Contigency % 10.00% $71,775.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL $789,525.00
Date: 2013-03-27
DWD
DWD
Rutland, Vermont 05702-6562 (802)855-8091

APPENDIX 4

GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM
WITH PV SYSTEM

APPENDIX 5

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Engineering Report Final 3-27-13

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Engineering Report Final 3-27-13

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

9 Washington Street

Rutland, Vermont 05701

Anda mungkin juga menyukai