rob best - decision support for integrated urban infrastructure planning
Post on 16-Apr-2017
115 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
© R
ober
t Bes
t
1
June
1, 2
016
Current Ideal
© R
ober
t Bes
t
2
Optimized Building + Optimized Infrastructure + Optimized Policy
≠ Optimized System
June
1, 2
016
© R
ober
t Bes
t
3
June
1, 2
016
Jaccard, et al. (1997); Nordhaus (1973); Engel-Yan, et al. (2005)
Incr
easin
g Im
pact
on
Ener
gyCommuni
tyPlanning and SUS
HVAC, Motors,
Vehicles, Appliances
Transit Mode,Industrial Processes,
Building and Site DesignDensity,
Mix of Uses,Energy Infrastructure,
Transportation Network
Where we Focus
Most
© R
ober
t Bes
t
4
June
1, 2
016
© R
ober
t Bes
t
5
How do energy efficiency, life cycle cost, and carbon emissions of a community
development change when energy infrastructure and urban planning are balanced simultaneously early in the
development process?
June
1, 2
016
Multiple buildings
and power sources
Energy supply and
demand
Multiobjective
Optimization
Hourly
© R
ober
t Bes
t
6
June
1, 2
016
Best, et al. (2015)
© R
ober
t Bes
t
7
June
1, 2
016
Best, et al. (2015)
© R
ober
t Bes
t
8
Boundary of the Development Ju
ne 1
, 201
6
ExternalGrid
Power Station
Residential
CommercialEnergy Flow
© R
ober
t Bes
t
9
June
1, 2
016
Create Mesh for Site Area to Describe All
Feasible Building Locations
Preprocessing
Key:
Find Minimum “Cost”
Pipe/Wire Spanning Tree
Calculate Change in Building
Performance from Temperature,
Pressure in Line
Calculate Efficiency,
Cost, Social Parameters
Choose Type of Building
that Exists at Each Node
Calculate “Cost” of Connections (Values on Arcs) Using Composite
Capital and Operating Cost
Genetic Algorithm
MILP Postprocessing
Report Best Solutions
© R
ober
t Bes
t
10
June
1, 2
016
Initialize •Choose individuals (decision variables) in starting population
Evaluate •Analyze energy, cost, carbon performance of individuals
Select •Keep top performing 50% of individuals
Crossover •“Mate” top performers to create new population
Mutate •Randomly alter some individuals to introduce new variations
Stop •Repeat for designated number of steps
© R
ober
t Bes
t
11
June
1, 2
016
Best, et al. (2015)
© R
ober
t Bes
t
12
June
1, 2
016
© R
ober
t Bes
t
13
Decision Variables: Case Studies
June
1, 2
016
Building TypesLarge Office Primary SchoolMedium Office Secondary SchoolSmall Office HospitalWarehouse Outpatient Health
CareStand-alone Retail Small HotelStrip Mall Large HotelQuick Service Restaurant
High Rise Condo
Full Service Restaurant
Midrise Apartment
Supermarket TownhouseMixed Use: Condo/Retail
Single Family Residence
Mixed Use: Office/Retail
Engine Type Fuel Source
Number Included
Gas Turbine Natural Gas
5
Microturbine Natural Gas
3
Reciprocating Engine
Natural Gas
5
Steam Turbine
Natural Gas
3
Fuel Cell Hydrogen 6Stoker Boiler/Turbine
Biomass 3
Fluidized Bed/Turbine
Biomass 3
Gasifier/Turbine
Biomass 4
Chiller Type
Energy Input Source
COP Range
Centrifugal Electricity 5.58-9.16Absorption Heat 0.71-0.83
© R
ober
t Bes
t
14
Fuel Efficiency for Downtown Oakland
June
1, 2
016
RunTotal Fuel
Cycle Efficiency
Hourly Standard Deviation
Maximum Efficiency from Simulation
55.67% 6.39%
Minimum Efficiency from Simulation
37.16% 6.04%
Oakland City Baseline 45.43% 9.44%Oakland CBD Baseline 43.76% 8.77%
Best, et al. (2014)
© R
ober
t Bes
t
15
Hunter’s Point Case Study
June
1, 2
016
Highest efficiencies do not exactly match zero carbon scenarios
Carbon and cost experience tradeoff (biomass cost)
Low cost and high efficiency is possible but tradeoff exists
Best, et al. (2015)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80
20000000400000006000000080000000
100000000120000000140000000160000000180000000
Life Cycle Cost vs. Efficiency
Efficiency
LCC
(USD
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80
50001000015000200002500030000350004000045000
Annual Carbon Emissions vs. Efficiency
Efficiency
Carb
on E
miss
ions
(T
ons/Y
r)0 50000000 100000000 150000000 200000000
05000
1000015000200002500030000350004000045000
Annual Carbon Emissions vs. Life Cycle Cost
LCC (USD)
Carb
on E
miss
ions
(T
ons/Y
r)
© R
ober
t Bes
t
16
June
1, 2
016
Best, et al. (2015)
CHP type is strong determinant of efficiency, but high efficiency exists across fuel and engine types
Absorption chillers have the highest efficiency due to use of excess heat
© R
ober
t Bes
t
17
June
1, 2
016
For results with only greater than 60% efficiency.
Any amount of residential can contribute to high efficiency
Best, et al. (2015)
Lower office and commercial correlate with higher efficiency
Industrial GFA over 70% and educational GFA over 50% of the total were not found to produce high efficiency solutions
© R
ober
t Bes
t
18
Beyond Energy…
June
1, 2
016
Fleeter, Mena, Mori, Morrice, Sonta, Lepech, and Best (2015 White Paper)
© R
ober
t Bes
t
19
Calculate Number of Buildings
Calculate Maximum Useful Heat for Treatment
Calculate Treated Water Requirement
Calculate Building Heat Requirement
Calculate Available Heat for Treatment
Allocate Heat Possible in Each Hour
Calculate Water Treatment Efficiency
Calculate CHP Efficiency
Calculate Building Electricity Requirement
June
1, 2
016
Images from NREL, Twitter
© R
ober
t Bes
t
20
Community Social
Sustainability
SafetyAccess
(Freedom)
Community
Built Environment
Aesthetics
Recreation/ Health
Nuisances
June
1, 2
016Emergency
Response
Light Pollution
Open Space/Parks
Greenery and Views
Density and Use
Walkability
Community Centers
top related