North America’s Most Energy Efficient Laboratory – The Showdown

We’ve long stated that the University of Winnipeg’s Richardson College for the Environment (RCFE) would be one of, if not the, most energy efficient laboratory building in North America.  Well it turns out it is time for us to test this claim.

In the Summer 2011 version of High Performance Buildings, an ASHRAE publication that focuses on sustainable building technologies, a suitable challenger arrived in the form of Stanford University’s ultra energy-efficient educational laboratory called the Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy (Y2E2) Building.

In the interest of creating the closest thing to a sporting event that the field of engineering gets, we will pit Y2E2’s “naturally-breathing, energy optimizing” (see the full article in High Performance Buildings, Summer 2011 for details) approach against RCFE’s “revolutionary energy-saving exhaust systems”. The contestant will participate in a four round bout, with equal weight being put to each of the following items: envelope, energy performance, water savings, and project costs.

The Matchup

In the Red corner, hailing from Stanford California and weighing in at 15,000m2 (165,000 ft2), the challenger Y2E2! 

In the Blue corner, weighing in at 13,500m2 (145,000 ft2), the defending champion, RCFE!

 Round 1: Envelope

The challenger comes out swinging in the initial round.  Y2E2 utilizes higher-than-typical insulation for a California project, including some slab insulation.  The colder climate of Winnipeg requires that RCFE has an exceptionally well insulated envelope.

Comparing window strategies, it is obvious that both buildings have taken a different approach.  Trying to avoid solar heat gain, Y2E2 has opted for low Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) windows on the South, East and West Walls.  A low SHGC is traded off slightly on the North side, where it is less critical, in favour of higher visual transmittance.  RCFE on the other hand uses high SHGC windows that allow passive solar heating during the winter months.  Summer gains are mitigated through the use of solar shading.  For its superior envelope and passive solar considerations, Round 1 goes to the champion RCFE, though narrowly.

 

Round 2: Water Savings

Though not directly related to the energy efficiency of the building, water savings is critical in overall sustainable design.  In this round it is the challenger that lands the most forceful blows. Y2E2 reduces its potable water consumption by a staggering 95% and also manages to achieve 55% water savings in the process systems.  RCFE achieves 45% fixture (potable water) savings; but, due to its recent completion, no data on process savings is currently available. Thus, round 2 goes decisively to the challenger.

Round 3: Energy

In the third round, energy savings, we see the champion start to retake control of the bout. RCFE boasts an energy savings of 56% better than ASHRAE 90.1 and an overall energy intensity of 150 MJ/m2 less than the challenger, Y2E2.  It is important to note, however, the differences in climate.  Y2E2 is built in California, a more temperate climate than Winnipeg by about 3000 degree days.  A more temperate climate equates to less extreme environmental conditions which In turn results in fewer heating days and fewer cooling days.

Y2E2 utilizes a multitude of passive design strategies to achieve natural ventilation and daylighting by creating a lung for the building in the form of an atria.  A solar atrium in combination with operable windows allows Y2E2 to passively siphon heat out of the building.  The building utilizes advanced controls sequences in its atria to minimize the amount of mechanical energy that is required to condition the building space. 

RCFE, on the other hand, utilizes a unique system for mitigating and recovering energy in the laboratory spaces.  A red-yellow-green system allows the mechanical system to decrease or eliminate exhaust when it is not required, based on the occupancy and use in the laboratory.  Heat recovery is achieved on the exhaust fume hoods by utilizing a SEMCO wheel, a heat recovery system that comes complete with a purging section to avoid contamination.

For its ability to overcome extreme environmental conditions while reducing energy consumption, round 3 is ruled in favour of the champion.

Round 4: Cost

In the final round the construction cost of the two buildings is compared.  Understandably there may be some differences in the cost of construction between California and Manitoba, due to local prices and labour, but for the purposes of this blog and to keep things simple, we will consider these economics to be similar.  Stanford’s Y2E2 is a beautifully constructed building, and the price tag shows it.  The construction costs for the building have come in at $483/ ft2.  Conversely, RCFE, and equally aesthetically pleasing building, was constructed for $310/ft2.

The Design team on RCFE utilized simple, cost effective solutions to achieve the energy performance and that led to a much more economical building.  round 4, once again, goes in favour of the champion!

The Decision

With a score of 3-1, the winner and still reigning champion is the University of Winnipeg`s Richardson College for the Environment!  We may one day find a laboratory that incorporates a more durable envelope, is more energy efficient, uses less water, and rings in at a lower cost per square foot.  But until that day, RCFE will wear the crown.

The challenger, Y2E2, put up an amazing fight, and the building details are well worth checking out.  Both buildings showcase some innovative technology and solid engineering design that is unique to their local climate and environmental conditions.