iWG Meeting Notes from 02/27/2023
Attached are the February iWG Meeting notes.
Attached are the February iWG Meeting notes.
--Your Information--
Name: Damon McFall, PE, MBA
Affiliation: Mechanical Science & Engineering Department
--Suggestion Details--
Subject / Project Name: Creating a Tasked Approach to 2050 Carbon
Neutrality Objective
Type: New Project
Description:
Project: Act 2050.
As 2022 concludes, I sense the need to draft up my end of the
year thoughts on iCAP and our approach. We cannot afford to think
only of 2050 as our ultimate goal of net-zero carbon achievement.
We must consider incremental plans, i.e. 2030 and 2040 with our
stretch goal attaining victory by 2050. Please find my thoughts
on addressing climate change at the University of Illinois and
proposal for a new project that will involve a massive effort of
bringing together respective parties in developing a
comprehensive Act 2050 schedule to complement and build upon the
Clean Energy Plan. The tasks below are to stimulate thought.
However, they lack supporting detail and perhaps other factors
not yet considered by the author. Such are welcomed to develop a
framework of measurable action and allow for prudent planning of
constrained resources. The seven broad concepts currently are: 1)
source sustainably, 2) build smartly and well, 3) renovate
strategically, 4) measure the relevant, 5) educate widely, 6)
monitor and act astutely, and 7) world events. This could be a
supplement provided to a hired holistically thinking firm that
can organize the broad and diverse community to plan the entirety
of a GHG emission zero campus and community.
1. Source Sustainably.
a. Stay abreast of source utility providers and on-campus
generation. How will these interplay and complement each other in
joint master planning efforts?
b. Develop relationships with source utility providers and
maintain awareness and encourage phased master planning documents
(i.e. 2030, 2040, 2050) to be jointly developed and shared by
campus and utility providers.
2. Build Smartly and WELL.
a. By 2023, abandon the net-zero growth policy while requiring
all new projects and current projects to build/renovate to
“net-zero ready”, or LEED Platinum (latest version).
b. By 2023, attend professional organizational meetings to
encourage local professionals to educate themselves on "net-zero
ready" building paradigm.
c. By 2023, chart and understand time related metrics (and cost)
to deliver a capital project, especially with CDB participation
as is anticipated unless P3 approach receives BOT approval.
i. This analysis should include the availability of labor at max
capacity of union tradespersons to perform installations.
Recently, at six large campus projects, the labor halls were
empty. What does the educational and labor pipeline and trends
forecast for tradespersons over next 30 years?
ii. Illinois State and University of Illinois Springfield
construction projects will also be increasing as time approaches,
thus perhaps drawing on regional labor pool.
iii. If we must address 100 buildings collectively, plus many in
the surrounding community, we may be looking at 15-20 years of
continuous construction at 100% labor availability (having all
labor re-tooled to know latest tech and science of advancing
systems).
d. Campus level technologies deployable now (2023) are to be
considered in the proposed Clean Energy Plan and may include:
steam, chilled water, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, methane,
renewable natural gas, hydrogen, and low temperature hot water,
and other delivery systems. Appears the solution lies in
optimizing the various potentials, various use types, and
external utility provider sources of available technologies for
the optimal benefit per investment.
e. Building level technologies deployable now (2023) are to be
considered in the proposed Clean Energy Plan and may include:
energy recovery wheels, heat pump, advanced sequences of
operation, auto-fault detection and diagnostics, variable speed
drives, digital controls, occupancy/vacancy sensors, LED
lighting, heat recovery chillers, high efficiency boilers, low
temp heating water systems, variable refrigerant technologies,
and building envelope and comfort system continuous and
re-commissioning.
f. Build so as to be maintainable afterwards with least effort
and educated resources.
g. By 2025, make it mandatory to design to optimally reduce scope
1 and 2 GHG emissions.
h. By 2025 and ongoing, reflect on and enable efficiencies in the
capital project delivery process to reduce time in each action.
i. By 2026, hire only A/E’s and Construction Managers with
experience in providing “net zero ready” and WELL buildings;
must demonstrate continuous advancement in net-zero knowledge and
application.
j. By 2027, decide what campus utility systems will be used to
meet 2050 objective.
k. By 2027, create “Program Statement” language that includes
provisions for mandatory meeting “net zero ready”, WELL
Buildings, LEED Platinum buildings, and neutral GHG emission
objectives and include as possible International Living Institute
and Regeneration Design concepts to stretch towards
net-positive.
l. By 2027, enable state and local government to require more
stringent energy and greenhouse gas emissions policies for state
and non-state funded capital projects.
m. By 2030, build to net-zero GHG emission levels while
optimizing source production, energy use index, and human
wellness per building use type.
3. Renovate Strategically.
a. By 2023, demolish as necessary during renovation to reduce
release of embodied carbon.
b. By 2023, recycle as much as possible when demolishing.
c. By 2026 to 2041, design all systems of facilities to "GHG
neutral or net-zero ready" for buildings campus determines to
keep for next 30 years (campus needs to create a long-term vision
and planning document to 2050 that address carbon neutrality).
d. By 2029 to 2049, execute phased construction of
projects/utilities to achieve net-zero carbon metric, using 100%
of available labor pool and plan on 20 years of continuous
construction activity.
4. Measure the Relevant.
a. By 2023, maintain accurate, trended, and normalized energy
consumption data on all facilities.
b. By 2025, create and perform a 5-year rotating plan to perform
Level 2 Energy Audits on top 100 GHG emitting facilities by
ASHRAE.
c. By 2025, know and track annually Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3
emissions as developed by the EPA for each facility on campus.
5. Educate Widely.
a. By 2024, if research is underway that may impact carbon
neutrality objectives, inform campus with expected year of
commercially available and UL listed products.
b. By 2024, communicate widely the project concept to occupation
length of time, availability of labor resources, availability of
vendor resources, etc.
i. As an example, the LUMEB facility took 8 years from concept to
occupancy. This transpired over COVID-19, but before supply chain
challenges.
ii. One can expect supply chain shortages for relevant technology
and design/installation expertise to increase as we approach 2050
on a global scale.
c. By 2025 to 2040, incentivize education of entire building
industry on net-zero approaches.
d. By 2026 (upon receipt of master plan), share plan with and
have mandatory workshops for any parties who participate in the
design, construction, and maintenance of a new facility on
campus, including many representatives and authorities at campus
facilities and services. They provide utility provisions, energy
certifications, and sustainable measures as approved by State of
Illinois and in harmony with their independently crafted building
standards, existing infrastructure, and internal master planning
efforts.
e. By 2026, report to campus and others the annual scope
emissions mentioned above for each facility.
f. By 2026, enable all chairs, heads, and business associates to
understand the fiscal impact expected and provide time to
allocate/determine funding resources.
g. By 2026, enable education of latest technology and
improvements in a continuous fashion year after year to labor
pool (update materials minimally once per year), i.e. A2L low
flammability refrigerant.
6. Monitor and Act Astutely.
a. Now… be aware of governmental, political and scientific
organizations programs and effects, educate widely!
i. Now... COP, Paris Agreement, etc.
b. Now… be aware of global companies and efforts or lack
thereof to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.
c. Now… know dynamic vendor supply chain constraints,
understand “early bird gets the worm” strategy, and update
general project timelines.
d. Now…plan to abandon steam generation at campus level and
move to building level as required as efficiently as possible,
begin migration.
e. Now… assess and track dynamic public opinion as we approach
2030 and each following year successfully, reviewing as to
impact; calculate loss or gain of tuition and research revenue
based on progress to net-zero carbon.
f. By 2026, be aware of campus scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions
per EPA on annual basis and act to maintain momentum as
required.
7. World Events.
a. Plan for and consider probability of effect on timescale
and perhaps necessity to exert more effort due to war, civil
unrest, pandemic, or like events.
Pros / Cons:
Pros - provides a proposal of actual tasks required to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2050 by our campus and surrounding
community, seeking to provide a platform for discussion of a
comprehensive and holistic view of the complex and dynamic forces
that will minimally affect the end objective.
Cons - This suggestion is of one mind. The suggestions above may
already be in motion, but not broadly communicated in a unified
fashion. Broader and inclusive discussion with respective parties
to be affected by this cultural evolution (everyone) need to be
involved in the discussion and provide their independent thoughts
towards enabling the community at large and state to achieve the
2050 objective.
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://icap.sustainability.illinois.edu/node/338/submission/173
_______________________________________________
This message was sent through the icap mailing list Send email to list at: icap@lists.mste.illinois.edu Manage your list settings or unsubscribe: https://lists.mste.illinois.edu/lists/info/icap
The Energy iCAP Team Met on 2/27/23 to discuss the progress of submitted recommendations and develop new recommendations.
Watch the recording here: https://mediaspace.illinois.edu/media/t/1_klua4vf2
The Energy iCAP Team met on January 30th, 2023 to discuss recommendations on building energy efficiency and revitalizing the energy scholars council at UIUC.
Link to meeting recording https://mediaspace.illinois.edu/media/t/1_2dwlpz7l
The Sustainability Council met on 12-13-22 and discussed the following agenda:
The meeting minutes and slide deck are attached.
The Sustainability Sub-Council met on Thursday, November 17 and discussed the following agenda.
1) Zero waste
2) Energy planning
3) Campus Strategic Plan
4) Old business
a. Sustainability General Education requirement
b. Sustainable land management committee report
The meeting minutes and PowerPoint presentation are attached.
The iCAP Working Group met on 10-10-22 and discussed the Engagement002 recommendation, campus sustainability month activities, and the clean energy plan. The meeting minutes are attached.
The Energy iCAP team met on Friday, November 4th, to discuss recommendations on how the University can achieve a clean energy plan.
Meeting Recording: https://mediaspace.illinois.edu/media/t/1_ilr81gro
The energy iCAP team met on Friday, October 7th 2022 to review the team's presentation for the campus sustainability celebration, review the team's priorities for the year, and discuss options for advancing the proposed clean energy plan and increasing procurement of renewable energy through power purchasing agreements.
Link to meeting recording: https://mediaspace.illinois.edu/media/t/1_5bh3gs4r
The iWG met on 5-23-22 and discussed the following agenda. The meeting minutes are attached.
UIUC's plans for a new microreactor were featured in the April edition of "Nuclear News." The article highlights efforts to build a "research, education, and training facility intended to help advanced reactor technology become a widely deployable, marketable, economic, safe, and reliable option for a clean energy future."
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Paul Foote - Energy Efficiency and Conservation Specialist
Karl Helmink - F&S Associate Director of Utilities and Energy Services
On 4/8/2022, the team met with Karl Helmink and Paul Foote. They both stressed an emphasis on energy conservation for the energy plan. They stated that a large problem stopping energy reduction is the “billions of dollars” worth of deferred maintenance that exist in campus buildings. This is in addition to the new buildings being constructed despite existing abandoned building space. They also informed us about the retro-commissioning team that they are both a part of. They reduce energy by an average of 25% for each building retro-commissioned and have saved the university over $100,000,000 in utilities since 2007. They do this by focusing on the “low hanging fruit,” this being scheduling, sensors and some maintenance. They roughly estimate that it will cost about 2 billion dollars to make the steam to hot water transition. This would take many years and about 10 boilers for redundancy. They recommend geothermal but warn that the university already has a lot of underground, so it would need to be placed carefully, possibly on the perimeter of campus. It would also still need a backup system (probably Abbott).
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Mike Larson - F&S Director of Utilities Production
On 4/7/22, the team met with Mike Larson. This interview gave valuable insight on the transitioning to clean energy, as well as the challenges that go along with using renewable sources. In the short term, it is recommended to focus on conservation as well as carbon capture technologies. He does not believe carbon capture is feasible for the long term, but it could be a valuable technology to use while technologies such as nuclear are being developed further. He believes that when nuclear is commercially viable, it will be the best option for campus. He also thinks that electrification of the university could be positive, but only if the grid electricity becomes more renewable. At the moment, the efficiency of Abbot is greater than the electricity sources that power the grid. If the campus were to be electrified and converted to hot water, technology such as heat recovery chillers should also be considered.
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Clark Bullard - Former MechE Professor, Experience in Thermal Systems
On 4/5/22 the team spoke with Clark Bullard. In this meeting, we were provided with valuable insight into the importance of conservation and updating the current steam heating system on campus. In his opinion, the University should focus on conservation mainly and purchase renewable energy from the grid. This would allow more resources to be put towards conservation, where there is currently a lot of energy being lost. Additionally, he stressed the importance of updating the campus heating system to something more modern, such as a hot water and heat pump system. The team found that this interview gave good insight and recommendations on a potential way to approach the energy transition.
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Xinlei Wang - ABE Professor, Experience in Renewable Energy Systems
John Zhao-ABE Doctorate Student, Research in Geothermal Systems
On 4/5/22, the team interviewed Dr. Xinlei Wang and John Zhao. Professor Wang is a subject matter expert with regards to geothermal energy and has done research on other forms of renewable energy. Professor Wang explained that geothermal energy is the most efficient way to both heat and cool buildings and that despite high upfront costs it is a cheaper system to implement than traditional heating and cooling. Professor Wang explained that if the University was to switch to a geothermal system, then it would have to be done building by building and it would take a lot of planning and time. Professor Wang also told the team that geothermal and solar energy can be used together to create an energy efficient system and make it viable for the University.
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Caleb Brooks - NPRE Professor, UIUC Micro-Nuclear Involvement
On 3/31/22 the team spoke with Dr. Caleb Brook, who is a professor in the nuclear engineering department here at the University. The team spoke to him about the feasibility of using micro-nuclear reactors as a power source for the campus. Dr. Brooks is about to start research to determine these exact questions. In his opinion, campuses will be using micro nuclear reactors to power themselves, but it is going to take eight to ten years to get to that point. The research done with micro nuclear reactors has been more theoretical and not applicable at this time. The team still feels that the university should start saving money now to purchase a nuclear reactor once they are commercially available.
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Cynthia Klein-Banai - Director of Sustainability at UIC
On 3/28/22, the team corresponded through email with Dr. Cynthia Klein-Banai, who is the Director of Sustainability at UIC. We inquired about the plans for the energy transition at UIC and she provided us with valuable insight on the University’s current initiatives. While the energy situations at UIUC and UIC are different, there is crossover between many aspects.
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Scott Willenbrock - Former Physics Professor, UIUC Solar Farm Involvement
On 3/24/22, the team met with Scott Willenbrock. He provided a lot of valuable information on Solar Farm 1 and 2, as well as the potential for a Solar Farm 3. He described that Solar Farm 3 will likely be an off-campus farm due to the lack of space on campus. He did mention that there was potential for putting a farm on campus in between Solar Farm 1 and 2, but it would be necessary to relocate the research that the fields are currently being used for. He thinks Solar Farm 3 will most likely be off campus, and he says the biggest challenge with this is getting things moving and having enough people behind it. He gave us some advice on rooftop solar, stating that the fault is in the economy of scale, but rooftop panels can be useful due to their visibility on campus/ promotion of clean energy. He also believes that storage is a challenge that needs to be addressed, batteries are too expensive now.
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Rob Roman - F&S Director of Utilities & Energy Services
On 3/22/22 the team interviewed Rob Roman. Rob’s biggest concern with a clean energy transition was the monetary aspect. The university only gets a certain amount of funding each year and a large amount of money is going to be needed for improvements to the system. Rob thought that geothermal is a good option for the University and thinks that it could be feasible on a large scale but would need to consult an expert to determine the land use. Rob also thought that a micro nuclear reactor was a very good option for the University with the caveat that it will be very expensive. He thought that the university does need to transition from its steam use for heating on campus unless a better emerging technology comes along. Rob told the team that biofuels have already been tried for the steam production, but it wasn’t feasible due to the transportation costs compared to natural gas and coal. Rob felt that for future energy plans they account for ambiguity and emerging technologies and have a place for energy storage which the campus currently does not utilize.
A document containing the notes from this interview is attached below.
Summary of the Clean Energy Transition Plan Interview:
Maria Maring - SSLC iWG Representative
Gabriel Kosmacher -SSLC Member
On 3/11/22, the team met with SSLC representatives from the iWG, Maria Maring and Gabriel Kosmacher. They had beneficial insight into the human side of energy implementation on campus. They both have experience in allocating SSLC funds to student proposed projects, so it was interesting to hear their point of view of sustainability projects on campus. They recommended energy conservation techniques that do not rely on individual actions. They also provided insight into the fact that students just want to see clean energy on campus, and they do not care how it happens. Finally, they expressed concerns on the location of micro nuclear reactors on campus, while also stressing that students would not be against nuclear power if they are educated on the topic.