8/13/2010

Green Buildings
and their

Financial Feasibility
12 August 2010

By: Mili Majumdar The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

Dimensions of ecologically sustainable development

Resources Water Energy Trees/vegetation Land and soils Pollution Water pollution Air pollution Soil degradation Erosion Solid waste

Conservation & augmentation

Environmental health

Green..the way to build

8/13/2010

A Green Building
Minimizes depletion of natural resources during its
construction and operation

Minimizes pollution: Water pollution, Air pollution, Soil

degradation, Erosion, Solid waste

Uses minimum energy to power itself Uses efficient equipments: lighting, air conditioning, etc.
Maximizes the

use of renewable energy sources building materials and construction

Uses efficient practices Uses

efficient waste and water management practices

comfortable and hygienic indoor environment

Provides

Benefits of Green Buildings

Minimal impact on site and surroundings
Erosion control Storm water management Pollution control Tree protection Heat island control

8/13/2010

Benefits of Green Buildings

Saves water by upto 30-40%
By reducing irrigation water requirement Use of efficient fixtures Rain water harvesting Waste water treatment on site Recycle and reuse of water

Benefits of Green Buildings

Saves energy by 40-50%
Minimize building energy demand through: Solar Passive Design Use of efficient building systems Maximum use of renewable energy

8/13/2010

Benefits of Green Buildings

Solid waste management
Reduction in waste during construction Efficient waste segregation at source Suitable storage and disposal at building level Resource recovery from waste

Benefits of Green Buildings

Use of sustainable building materials
Use of recycled material: Fly ash, blast furnace slag Adopting efficient technologies Use of low-energy materials
Very high energy Aluminum, stainless steel, plastics, copper Steel, lead, glass, cement, plaster board Lime, clay bricks and tiles, gypsum plaster, concrete (in situ, blocks, pre-cast) Sand, fly ash, blast furnace slag
www.luxuryhousingtrends.com

www.science.edu/

High energy

Medium energy

Low energy

8/13/2010

Benefits of Green Buildings

Minimal negative impact on people Healthy and productive work environment
Clean environment for construction workers Day lighting/natural ventilation Universal accessibility

National Rating System: GRIHA

Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment

Tool to facilitate design, construction, operation of a green building ,and in turn .measure greenness of a building in India

Set of 34 criteria 100 (+4 innovation points) point system with differential weightage on various criteria

51 - 60 61 - 70 71 - 80 81- 90 91- 100

8/13/2010

Why GRIHA ?
All Green Building aspects covered under GRIHA Rating What gets measured gets managed Policies/programs to mainstream green construction
Energy Conservation Act 2001 enacted Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC)2007 launched Star rating of existing buildings launched Ministry of Power/Bureau of Energy Efficiency empowered to mandate ECBC Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests/State Environment Impact Assessment Authority mandatory for all large constructions Resource (energy, water) efficiency integral part of clearance

Convergence is crucial to implementation and mainstreaming

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy incentivises GRIHA programme National green building rating system GRIHA launched

National Action Plan on Climate Change Mission on Sustainable Habitat

GRIHA Scoring Weights

Materials and construction technology 17%

Site planning 17%

Health and well being 9% Waste management 5% Energy(end use) and Renewable Energy 37%

Water 15%

8/13/2010

5 Star Rated GRIHA Building

in IIT Kanpur

Trees preserved and protected Solar PV and Solar Thermal systems

N-S Orientation with shading (roof/window)

Outdoor solar lights Lesser paving

Incremental cost 17% Energy savings 52% Payback period :3 years

Common wealth Games Village

Sustainable site planning
(compensatory afforestation, topsoil preservation, etc)

Water efficient landscape

by adopting native species, efficient irrigation systems and limiting turf areas.

Building water consumption reduced by use of high efficiency and lowflow fixtures

Energy efficiency measures

such as high performance glass, roof insulation, energy efficient lighting and variable refrigerant volume based air conditioning shall reduce the energy consumption of the apartments significantly

Solar photo voltaic system is proposed to meet 10% of total energy

requirement for internal lighting

Waste water recycling and solid waste management system are being
planned

8/13/2010

Station cum commercial complex for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation(16 hour /day use)
EPI (Base case):522 kWh/sq m /year EPI (ECBC roof and glass): 469 kWh/sq m /year (10% savings) EPI (ECBC light power density): 424 kWh/sq m /year (18% savings) EPI (ECBC HVAC): 331kWh/sq m /year (36% savings) EPI (Heat recovery): 268 kWh/sq m /year (48% savings) Tonnage of AC brought

Challenges: Builder investstenant benefits (overcome through committed leadership) Design team may not accept change (overcome through continuous discussion process) Owner may not put up all the systems (overcome through laying down tenant/buyers guidelines)

Are Green Buildings Financially Feasible?

Description of study conducted by TERI

7 green rated buildings selected as case studies

Required building data collection (through primary survey,

consultation with subject experts, basic thumb rules for filling in data gaps)

Green case and base case established

Data analysis

8/13/2010

Are Green Buildings Financially Feasible? Description of study conducted by TERI

Life of building: 25 years Values used for calculation of present value factors
Inflation rate: 4.9% Nominal discount rate:16% Real discount rate: 10.6% Escalation rates: 7.6%

Costs
Single costs: Initial investment costs, capital replacement costs and resale value of building Uniform annually recurring costs: Operation & Maintenance costs Non-uniform annually recurring costs: Energy costs of the building

Study results
Comparison of initial cost ( per sq.m.) of Green vs conventional buildings

C om pa rison of c ost/sqm for G re e n building vs C onve ntiona l building

C os t/s qm for Green building s
25000

23000 19239 17185 18335 14707 14119 18030

C os t/s qm for C onventional building s 20985 19075 15900 13574 16674 14293

20000 C os t/s qm

15000

13636

10000

5000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

R a ng e of initia l inves tm ent cos t for G reen B uilding s = R s . 14707-23000/s qm R a ng e of initia l inves tm ent cos t for C onventiona l B uilding s = R s . 13574-19075/s qm

8/13/2010

Study results
Increment in initial cost of Green vs conventional buildings

Increm ent in Initial Investm ent for Green case as com pared to conventional case Initial investment cost (Crore Rupees)

32%
300 200

Green Case Conventional Case

17%
100 0 1 2 3 4 Case Studies 5 6 7

12%

4% 25% 17% 10%

Initial investment cost for Green buildings is higher as compared to conventional buildings: incremental cost

ranging from 4-32 %

Study results
Components of green building cost increment
Incremental cost components
Green rating & consultancy, 12% Envelope, 39%

Systems, 35%

Lighting & controls, 15%

Building envelope Systems (HVAC system, Electrical system, BMS) Lighting& controls

Roof & wall insulation, high performance glazing Efficient chillers, motors & pumps, VFD, economizers, heat recovery wheel, BMS Energy efficient lamps & fixtures, controls (Daylight & occupancy sensors)

39% 35%

15%

Towards green rating

12%

10

8/13/2010

Study result: Green building cost increment

-Major contributors Building envelope, Efficient systems and Lighting
Reduction in energy consumption due to these:
EPI (kWh/sqm per annum) 700 600 605 593 476 346 312

500 EPI (kWh/sqm per annum) % reduction Base building 400 605 Envelope optimization 2 300 593 Lighting optimization 476 21 200 346 Efficient chiller 43 100 312 Controls for HVAC system 48 0
Base building 605

21
Lighting optimization 476 21

43
Efficient chiller 346 43

48
Controls for HVAC 312 48

Envelope optimization 593 2

EPI (kWh/sqm per annum) % reduction

ECBC interventions
Base Case EPI (kWh/ m2 per annum) 605 Final case 312 Total % Reduction 48

Study results

Maximum cost increment due to:

Efficient envelope, systems and lighting Which cause maximum energy savings, thus reduction in annual electricity bills Which are ECBC recommendations

11

8/13/2010

GRIHA Compliant Building= ECBC compliant+

ECBC Compliance: Energy saving potential in a ECBC and GRIHA compliant building
1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000

37%

45%

Insulation High Performance glass Controls Efficient electrical , mechanical and lighting systems Incremental cost: 15% Payback period < 5 years

GRIHA Compliance:
ECBC + Passive principles (shading, orientation, controlled glass area) ECBC compliant GRIHA compliant Higher indoor design conditions building building (higher by 1 deg C) Optimized lighting design No further incremental cost Payback period: < 4 years

kWh/yr

conventional building

Study results
Life cycle cost comparison of Green vs Conventional Building
Comparison of Life cycle costs over 25 years : Green vs Conventional Case

700 600
Cost (Crore Rs.)

679
Life cycle cost - Green Case Life cycle cost -Conventional case

500 400 300 200 100 0

1 2 3 38 43 5 7 81 107

440

139 170 8 10 4 5 6 9 11 7

Life cycle cost of Green buildings is lower as compared to conventional buildings

12

8/13/2010

Study results

Payback period
Comparison between payback periods of different case studies 3.5 3 3 2.5 Years 2 2 1.5 1 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 2 2

Discounted payback periods ranging from 1 to 3 years

Study results
Financial feasibility assessment of Green Buildings
Comparison of SIR & AIRR
35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

29 24 23 15.3 22 21 20 19

5.3 4.1 3 7 4

3.61

3.02 6

2.3 1.9 1 5

SIR

AIRR (%)

Savings to investment ratio ranging from 1.9 to 15.3 Adjusted internal rate of return ranging from 19-29%

13

8/13/2010

Low energy strategies: for low income groups

Silkworm rearing house: Bangalore

Thermal comfort requirement: Chawki room: 25 to 28 deg C with 70-90% RH Rearing room: 23 to 25 deg C with 70-80% RH Non uniform heating/cooling leads to loss in 5070% of yield

14

8/13/2010

External methods used to decrease the temperature

False ceiling with thermocol

False ceiling with thermocol

False ceiling with thermocol

False ceiling with wooden logs

Wet gunny cloth hanged in corridor

Wet gunny cloth hanged in door and windows

Wet gunny cloth hanged in windows

Coconut leaves shading to doors and windows

Wet sand bed with ragi seeds sown near bottom ventilators

Solar passive silkworm rearing house for enhanced productivity

Strategies for summer: Roof pond with insulation Insulated wall and roof Wall shading Solar chimney on south wall with adjustable vents (to improve ACH in the rearing room) Air Inlet from north wall covered with wet gunny bags for added humidity

15

8/13/2010

South view of the rearing house

Architectural design of the rearing house

16

8/13/2010

Solar passive silkworm rearing house for enhanced productivity

Strategies for winter: Insulated wall and roof Retractable shading Trombe wall on south wall with adjustable vents Air Inlet from north wall closed

Thermal performance predicted

17

8/13/2010

TERI University: Usage of multiple low energy cooling techniques: (thermal storage, earth air tunnel, Variable refrigerant flow system)

Thank You

18