Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Energy & buildings : sustainable strategies for Ponderosa Hub Roy-Jauvin, Raphael; Haar, Yael; Kholeif, Hadi; Pisarek, Natalia 2012-03-27

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Jauvin_R_et_al_SEEDS_2012.pdf [ 943.34kB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108575.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108575-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108575-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108575-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108575-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108575-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108575-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report          Energy & Buildings: Sustainable Strategies for Ponderosa Hub Raphael Roy-Jauvin, Yael Haar, Hadi Kholeif, Natalia Pisarek University of British Columbia APSC 364 March 27, 2012            Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. 0  Raphael Roy-Jauvin Yael Haar Hadi Kholeif Natalia Pisarek A synthesis report prepared for: APSC 364 March 27th, 2012    ENERGY & BUILDINGS: SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES FOR PONDEROSA HUB 1  TABLE OF CONTENTS  I.0 Background  Brief…………………………………………………………………………………..p.3 1.1 Current dominant sources of Energy at UBC 1.2 Current infrastructure for energy at UBC 1.3 Current End users of Energy at UBC 1.4 Current Inputs and Outputs of the System 1.5Current Cost implications to UBC and adjacent areas 1.6 Current environmental impacts of systems 1.7 Current Social Impact considerations 1.8 Jurisdictions that control Energy and Systems  2.0 Summary of the Four Options……………………………………………………………p.5 2.1 Building management systems 2.2 Eco-feedback System 2.3 Energy Conservation Competition 2.4 Phase Change materials  3.0The Indicator Matrix……………………………………………………………………….p.10  4.0 Results of  the  Matrix………………………………………………………………………p.11 4.1 Building Management System 4.2 Eco-feedback system 4.3 Energy conservation Competition 4.4 Phase Change Materials 4.5 Cumulative Table 2  5.0 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….p.16 5.1 Energy savings Competition 5.2 Phase Change materials References…………………………………………………………………………………………p.20 Appendix A – Energy  Use  Composition……………………………………………….p.23 Appendix B – UBC  Residences  Energy  Use…………………………………………..p.23 Appendix C Indicator  Matrix……………………………………………………………....p.24       3  1.0 BACKGROUND BRIEF  1.1 CURRENT DOMINANT SOURCES OF ENERGY AT UBC The current dominant sources of energy for the purpose of heating and generating electricity within the UBC Vancouver campus are from Fortis BC, which provides natural gas and BC Hydro, which provides electricity to the campus through electric transmission lines. The natural gas and electricity are then distributed to the core academic, ancillary and tenant buildings. The electricity is used to light, ventilate and air-condition the campus. Natural gas fuels the district energy system, which then generates steam in order to heat the buildings on campus.  1.2 CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ENERGY AT UBC The buildings at UBC are heated through the steam district heating system composed of a comprehensive piping distribution network, in-building energy transfer stations and an energy plant. The steam distribution system is used to distribute the steam through the distribution pipes. The distribution system consists of 8.5km of underground piping and operates at a temperature of approximately 180°C. The equipment in energy transfer stations in each building includes heat exchangers, steam meters and steam to water converters. The energy transfer stations in each building include a steam meter and pressure reducing valve (PRV) assembly in order to reduce system pressure. UBC’s  buildings  use a high-temperature heating system with a supply temperature ranging from 80°C -93°C. The boiler plant contains four steam boilers installed with a total capacity of 420,000lb/hr and a firm capacity of 270,000lb/hr (Stantec, 2010). Two BC Hydro transmission circuits feed the electrical distribution network at UBC, 60L56-North with a capacity of 62 MVA and 60L67-South with a capacity of 42 MVA, operating in parallel on the 12kV side of the transformer. Either line has the capability to carry the entire load of the North substation, UNY at which they terminate if the other transmission line is currently out of service. The campus is gradually approaching the limits of the BC Hydro electrical transmission lines that are currently serving the community. The North substation has a capacity of 47 MVA and a peak load of 32 MVA while the south substation has a capacity of 13 MVA and a peak load of 11 MVA. The total combined peak load of both substations is 43 MVA. UBC has a power factor of 0.95 within its electrical transmission lines (Stantec, 2010).  1.3 CURRENT END USERS OF ENERGY AT UBC An end user is defined as a person who uses product requiring energy consumption. It is important to note that the end user may not necessarily be the purchaser of the device or energy. In the case of UBC residences, end users of energy consist of: Residents, staff and janitorial crew, and visitors. There are currently 8,000 residents and staff living and working in UBC’s  student  housing.  The  University  Neighborhood Association (UNA) has 7,500 residents living on campus. The University is hoping to grow its number of student residents to 14,000 by 2025. A large number of factors, not necessarily unique to universities, may influence the energy saving behavior of end users. These are identified by Smith and Pett (2005) as follows: · Employment situation (employed, self-employed, or unemployed) · Level of knowledge over heating methods and systems · Proper understanding of thermostat behavior, and placement of thermostats in the household.  1.4 CURRENT INPUTS AND OUTPUTS OF THE SYSTEM Wasted energy with older systems at UBC amounts to the losses from the distribution networks, operations staff states that 28% of steam that leaves the powerhouse is lost during distribution; 6% of this steam is used internally for de-aerating. Stantec estimates the distribution losses at 25% and de-4  aeratator energy use at 4%. Overall system efficiency is 62% when the boiler and distribution efficiencies are combined. It is estimated that these losses of steam are generally consistent throughout the year. A major source of wasted energy by older steam systems is loss from distributions networks.  1.5 CURRENT COST IMPLICATIONS TO UBC AND ADJACENT AREAS Since the Campus sustainability office was formed in 1998, UBC has achieved savings of upwards of 7 million dollars annually. The energy  costs  of  UBC’s  residences,  as  well  as  their  Building  Energy  Performance Index as compiled by Storey (2011) are shown in appendix A.  1.6 CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SYSTEMS The  current  environmental  impacts  of  UBC’s  housing  and  energy  accounts  for  over  95%  of  UBC’s  greenhouse gas emissions (UBC 2010b). UBC plans to identify strategies to transform the existing energy system from a GHG intensive system to one that is GHG neutral to achieve its goal of becoming the first carbon neutral campus in North America. UBC plans on attaining to this goal by completing the following steps:  1. Building enclosure retrofits and mechanical system upgrades to reduce heating consumption  2.  Replacing the existing steam based district-heating system with medium temperature hot water to reduce thermal losses and replacing the aging natural gas boilers with alternative technology.  3.  Electrical demand side management to extend the service life of the existing distribution network, and potentially eliminate the need for increased distribution system capacity.  A plan to move from high to medium temperature steam is presently being created, which will lead to a 40% reduction in GHG emissions. UBC has introduced a process to implement a biomass gasification plant is currently under construction. Lastly, the building retrofits are being expanded which are expected to reduce emissions by an additional 30%.  1.7 CURRENT SOCIAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS Since the 1990s UBC has promoted sustainable community planning as they envisioned a vibrant university  community.    “The  University  Neighborhoods’  Association  was  established  in  2002 to support the growth of a vibrant and sustainable community and provide municipal-like services for residents. This  act  is  integrated  under  British  Columbia’s  Societies  Act  and  governed  by  a  board  of  seven  members.  To this day the UNA has 2,000 members and represents approximately 7,500 residents in 5 different neighborhoods. Local regulations are made—noise, parking, animal control, etc.—by the UNA in addition to recreation, community programs, elections and landscaping. Another social impact program is UBC REAP (Residential Environmental Assessment Program) which is a green building rating system which was developed to provide residents with a rating system based on the LEED certification system. REAP is a prescriptive assessment system that takes the much of the guesswork out of sustainable building practices for residential developers, which are typically not as familiar with green buildings.  1.8 JURISDICTIONS THAT CONROL ENERGY AND SYSTEMS UBC is responsible for securing its own energy needs. Electricity and natural gas is distributed to academic, ancillary and residential buildings on campus. In this context UBC is both a utility customer and a utility supplier. Since UBC is a separate jurisdiction within the GVRD this raises responsibilities but 5  also opportunities. UBC is able to set its own trajectory for energy management and has opted for a platform of sustainability in recent years. UBC has created several key projects and mandates, which guide energy use and energy planning decisions on campus. For example, UBC has created a program for residential housing on campus called Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP), which directs decisions regarding tenant buildings on campus. Other initiatives include: · Campus Sustainability Office, which informs campus operations from a sustainability perspective; · Energy Optimization Program partnership with BC Hydro to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent by 2015; · Energy retrofit via ELECTrek II: Reductions of energy use through lighting re-design; · Alternative Energy Sources Project (AESP) to examine the feasibility of low-carbon and carbon-neutral energy alternatives; · Energy management via energy dashboards and energy meters; ·∙  Focus  on  behavior  change:  “A  key  source  of  energy  conservation for the future is not in the ground or the air, but in what we reduce through our behavior. We need to rewire ourselves to consume less and  reuse  what  we  waste…we  all  have  a  responsibility to power a sustainable world”  (UBC  2012).    2.0 SUMMARY OF THE FOUR OPTIONS   2.1 BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS   Description  A building management system (BMS) is a computer-based control system connected in buildings which controls  and  monitors  the  building’s  electrical  and  mechanical  apparatus.  A  BMS comprises  of  hardware  and  software  used  to  control  a  building’s  power  systems,  lighting,  security  and  HVAC systems. The three basic functions of a BMS are controlling, monitoring and optimizing the building’s  energy  performance  for  efficiency.  High-level cost implications  High-level cost implications including capital costs and projected operating costs may vary significantly. The capital cost of the anticipated system at Ponderosa Hub is $160,000 and is expected to cost approximately in the range $0.50-$1 per sq.ft to operate. It is expected that such a system will introduce annual savings of up to 30% depending on the condition of the building.   Environmental impacts  The building management system will result in positive environmental impacts, it will help cut greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere and decrease the life-cycle energy requirements through less demand of natural resources.  Social Impacts   BMS systems generally work well on the macro-scale but are not as commonly applied at the micro-scale since residents desire a degree of temperature control in their living space.   Co-benefits to UBC and the community  There are multiple benefits that a building management system may provide to UBC and the campus community. Building occupants may enjoy steady control of internal comfort conditions. Other benefits include effective monitoring of building performance, reduction of energy consumption 6  through performance optimization, increased plant operational lifetime and reliability. UBC may enjoy a higher value to the buildings, central control and monitoring of building and lower costs of maintenance.  Research and academic potential of this project   The BMS has an academic research potential as groups of scientists may study and analyze the performance data of the building in order to determine the optimum performance characteristics. There is also research potential into the relationship between BMS and resident comfort.   Potential controversy  Although are multiple benefits as a result of using this technology, it is possible to introduce a potential controversy since residents may desire greater autonomy.   Implicated stakeholders  UBC, Fortis and BC Hydro are all stakeholders. Residents are also important to consider since an automated system might reduce their level of thermal control in their living space.    2.2 ECO-FEEDBACK SYSTEMS  Description  In most cases residents of buildings are unaware of how much energy they consume on a day-to-day basis. Eco-feedback systems can help occupants have a more interactive relationship with their use patterns. These systems can provide occupants with information on the amount of energy consumption  that  is  occurring  while  encouraging  energy  efficient  behavior.  There  is  a  “user  interface”  between a computerized system and building occupants that allows display of usage; which may prompt energy savings. There are several major design components which are described below:     High level cost implications  The costs of an eco-feedback system range from $264-396 not including the costs of installation (Berges, Nunes, et al, Ocneaunu, and Quintal). It is important to note that these figures were converted from Euros.  Potential savings ranged from 5% to 55% throughout three studies. One residential eco-7  feedback study was found a reduction in energy consumption by 10% by providing users with historical consumption information (Jain, Taylor, Peschiera 2012). Another residential study observed savings of up to 26% by providing historical and normative consumption information to 80 users. (Jain, Taylor, Peschiera 2012). A third residential study which provided users with historical and detailed appliance-specific consumption information yielded savings of 5.8% (Jain, Taylor, Peschiera 2012).These three studies illustrate the variability in observed savings and constituting interface components across eco-feedback studies (Jain, Taylor, Peschiera 2012).  Environmental impacts  Researchers have concluded that reasonably achievable emissions reduction can be approximately 20% in the household sector within 10 years if the most effective interventions are used. (T. Dietz, Gardner, Gilligan, Stern, Vandenbergh).   Co-beneficiaries  A list of co-benefits consists of saving energy and money, having residents interact with and promote sustainable energy use. Moreover, residents can be given rewards which generate an additional incentive to conserve.   Research potential of this project  There is high research potential including psychological research to see how eco-feedback systems affect the behaviour of residents. Also a comparative study with and without eco-feedback systems could also be a potential study.   Potential controversy  The debate over the accuracy of energy monitoring devices may be one controversy. Overlap in functionality between the components  (e.g.  “network  average”  on  historical comparison graphs) is another potential issue.   2.3 ENERGY COMPETITION   Description  Residence-wide competitions whose goals are to reduce energy consumption at the demand level promote energy literacy and foster residence community development at UBC. First year dormitories at UBC have already participated in the so called Do it in the Dark competition, which was a BC wide inter-university competition between dorms to engage first year students in sustainability; Totem Park and Place Vanier earned first place among many schools (UBC Campus and Community Planning, 2011).   The fact that this competition has already occurred on campus provides a good first step in helping design one, which could include Ponderosa hub. Do it in the Dark employed awards and a Facebook page to inform students of the competition and of their standings, as well as taking advantage of community settings like the dining hall to inform students. Ponderosa hub has a different design, it is less focused on communal living, and thus a different design approach to engage and inform residents should be employed.    An excellent study by Brewer and Lee (Hawaii 2011) laid out a plan for a similar competition (The Kukui Cup) at the University of Hawaii whose central strengths lay in the implementation of power meters in the electrical panels to monitor energy usage per floor. This was accompanied by an open 8  source monitoring website which can monitor energy consumption in real time. This application, available at:, is modeled to be usable by any University wishing to implement its own residence wide competition.   A successful study would engage participants through information, constant feedback through the above website, and a points and awards system designed to reward floors with the most savings.  High level cost implications  One of the biggest strengths of this option is its cost affordability. The only major cost involved would be the hiring of a part time employee to manage and ensure the quality of the competition, as well as prizes for remuneration.  State of development of technology  Technology is readily available and  proven  to  be  effective.  UBC’s  own  competition  has  demonstrated a willingness to participate and be engaged on the part of the students. Also, dorm competitions in general have been shown to be reliably successful at reducing energy usage (Brewer and Lee 2010). Finally, the software for feedback is already in place.  Environmental impacts/ Resource use  The positive environmental impacts of the contest would be reducing energy consumption and decreasing the carbon footprint.   Co-beneficiaries  The main co-beneficiaries are UBC who stands to save money from this competition through reductions in energy use, all the participants who stand to learn about sustainability and energy conservation, and the academic community who, if involved, can study and learn about non-financial incentives of energy conservation, and what motivates individuals to change their own actions for a communal good.   Research potential  As stated above, the unique social conditions of a residence setting and its location in the heart of Academia provide great research opportunities for those studying behavior.  Controversy Brewer and Lee (2011) have noted that little is known about post-competition changes in participant behavior due to lack of research. Additionally, Sintov et al. (2010) attempted a similar competition based on self-completed surveys about behavior, which could be filled out online but found that of thousands of potential student participants, only six registered to participate. Thus, as the Ponderosa hub is built in a much less social nature than first year residences, the probability of low participation is a potential weakness in this proposed option.  2.4 PHASE CHANGE MATERIALS  Description   A phase change material (PCM) is a material with a high capacity of storing and releasing large amounts of energy. PCMs can be used in building design to achieve thermal stability, thereby reducing energy heating (and cooling) load. PCMs are latent heat storage materials which use chemical bonds to 9  store and release heat. This technology is not new and is well researched regarding its energy savings potential. PCMs are not as well developed in the commercial sense but there are several market-available PCM products for residential use in building envelopes. PCM products are often blended with conventional insulation but there are also separate products meant to be installed in addition to insulation.   High level cost implications Costs are borne during the initial stage of application. Once PCMs are installed as wall insulation there are no further costs associated with maintenance or monitoring. In other terms, PCMs are a passive strategy. Some PCM companies provide consulting services such as feasibility studies at costs ranging from $1,500 to $3,000. More specifically, two PCM products have been identified: Apple Blossom Energy PCM-blended cellulose insulation and Phase Change Energy Solutions BioPCM mats. The former is insulation, the latter is a PCM product meant to be installed together with conventional insulation. The cost of the BioPCM mat is $2.00 per sq.ft; it should be noted that this product does not need to cover the entire wall space to effective (Phase Change Energy 2012). However, we must also keep in mind that the cost of BioPCM mat is on top of the cost of conventional insulation since it does not replace insulation. The cost for the PCM cellulose insulation is between $2 and $5/lb (ORNL 2008).   Environmental impacts/ Resource Use The environmental impacts of PCMs are dependent on their source material. PCMs today are non-toxic, non-flammable and safe for human handling. However, life cycle analyses indicate that PCMs have impacts (Gracia 2010). For example, the BioPCM mat is composed of soy and palm oils. This product is 100% recyclable but there are larger-picture implications. Palm oil has received criticism in recent years since commercial crops of palm oil displace local ecosystems.  Significant energy savings are possible with application of phase change materials. Studies have shown that savings of 40% are attainable, however the more conservative estimate of 30% is used in this report. Related to energy savings are cost savings for the university. Other benefits include increased  thermal  comfort  for  residents  since  PCMs  enable  maintenance  of  “comfort  zone”  temperatures inside residences.   Co-Beneficiaries UBC is a in an excellent position to benefit from this option financially since reduced energy consumption is linked to reduced costs.    Research potential There is no direct research prospect since the PCM will be inaccessible once installed inside residence walls; monitoring of energy use will affirm the energy reduction potential of this technology. However, there are a number of indirect paths for study of PCM. Examples of research streams include: life  cycle  analysis  and  identification  of  more  “sustainable”  materials  with  phase  change  properties.    Controversy Potential controversy may arise from the composition of the PCM itself. Use of palm oil products, as mentioned above, can be contentious. There may also be concern by some that UBC is settling  for  technological  “fixes”  rather  than  engaging  with  sustainability  in  a  more  meaningful way. However, the energy saving potential of this strategy is significant. If PCMs are applied in tandem with other programs which stress community participation, open dialogue, social sustainability and consumer responsibility there is a high possibility of success. 10     3.0 INDICATOR MATRIX  The indicator matrix was developed around these following objectives because they were deemed  conducive  to  UBC’s  sustainability  goals:   1. To help UBC ensure ongoing economic viability 2. To develop realistic and achievable sustainability strategies 3. To help UBC understand and manage project risk 4. To help UBC achieve a major objective in sustainable design - to reduce energy consumption 5. To help the Province of BC meet its objective to reduce the expected increase in electricity demand by 2020 by 66% 6. To help UBC reach its carbon neutral objective 7. To help UBC increase understanding of sustainability inside and outside the university 8. To help UBC integrate research opportunities into the operations branch of UBC (integrating operations, teaching, learning and research) 9. To create strategies which are long-lasting and effective over long timescales These objectives attempt to integrate environmental, social and economic sustainability and are primarily  motivated  by  UBC’S  Inspirations and Aspirations Final Report (2010). Provincial level goals are also taken into consideration for energy reduction targets considering that UBC is supplied by provincial  hydro  power.  A  fourth  “temporal”  category  was  added  to  reflect  the  focus  on long-term solutions. Therefore, four categories are identified in the matrix: economic, environmental, social and temporal. Economic indicators primarily address capital and operational costs of the different strategies. Environmental indicators address the energy saving potential of each strategy, including related carbon emission reductions. Social indicators attempt to identify the community participation and education potential of each strategy. Finally, the temporal indicator attempts to assess whether the strategy is effective over the long-term since sustainability at UBC is discussed as a long-term process.  Some of the indicators rely on percentages or calculated estimates, such as the energy savings estimates. Many of the indicators are quantitative and rely on a 1 to 3 scale; 1 being a low score and 3 being the most desirable score. Marine Drive Towers were used as a proxy because it shares some attributes with Ponderosa Hub: it is a relatively new development (compared to Gage for example) and it does not use steam for energy (neither will Ponderosa). The numbers used in these calculations are available in Appendix B.   3.1 Matrix in *APPENDIX A*          11   4.0 RESULTS OF THE MATRIX   4.1 BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM   Economic Sustainability The capital costs would include the retail value of the system and installation of system including all additional devices. The cost of which is approximately determined to be $160,000 by Siemens Canada. Training costs are included in the capital costs, usually provided by the manufacturer, in order to train several personnel in the use of the system which approximately lasts two months. The recommended system is the BMS developed by Siemens as it presents an equal trade-off between the device features, energy-saving efficiency and the capital and operational costs. The cost of operation is low at approximately $0.50-$1.00 per sq.ft. for effective operation and would not require any personnel to monitor the system on a daily basis therefore this duty may assigned to the maintenance team. It would also decrease the carbon tax costs by $30/ton as the system results in decreased greenhouse gas emissions. The implementation of the system results in a low payback period (approximately 5 years) according to the Harvard sustainability initiative and a high return on investment, although to actual data is present. This system would require extensive planning by the building operators and a cost-benefit analysis of the operation of the system. Engineers/Technologists will be required to be present on-site in order to install and startup system. Complexity of long-term management of the system is extremely minimal as it is completely automated and thus does not require later human inputs. On some scheduled occasions, maintenance teams will need to check the system for any warnings or potential system crashes. Although there is specialized knowledge required to operate the system, this may be overcome through a simple training course that is offered by the manufacturer for technicians. Almost all technicians will be capable of understanding the concepts; good computer skills will also be required.  Environmental Sustainability The estimated reduction in energy may be up to 30%, according to Siemens Canada, when installed in older buildings, which is not built with a LEED sustainability standard in mind. At the Ponderosa Hub, it is expected that the system will function to increase the energy efficiency within the building environment by reducing the energy approximately 12%-15% in kWh used per year according to Siemens. For an average building of 10 floors, the installation of the Siemens internal system would decrease energy use and result in annual savings of $33,000 according to Harvard University sustainability initiative. Using a BMS system, according to the Harvard sustainability initiative, it results in a decrease in annual greenhouse gas emissions of over 31 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in a commercial building of 10 floors. It is therefore estimated that there will be a reduction of $930 annually in the carbon tax.  Social Sustainability The project is not highly visible as it runs in the background and may not be noticed by the public. Thus, it is expected that there will be a low degree of participation by the public. This may result in  residents  not  being  aware  of  fundamental  sustainability  issues.  It  fails  to  reflect  UBC’s  active  participation vision due to its inactive strategy. Although the system has been available commercially for multiple customers during the last decade, according to Dr. Atabaki of the UBC Mechanical Engineering Department, the system has not been perfected and there are always opportunities to further tune and enhance the system using formulas developed through scientific research. 12   Temporal Indicator It is extremely efficient over-time, building management systems perform extremely well over time. It is a lifelong technology, which produces annual cost savings and reduced greenhouse gas emissions compared to a building without BMS.  The BMS option is a perfect long-term sustainability initiative, due to its low payback period; it is has an excellent return on investment and is the optimum choice for energy reduction in residential and commercial buildings. Although it has high implementation costs and requires extensive knowledge to install and operate, it does not require any further modifications. The option performs poorly on social sustainability as there is no any community participation in the project while it runs in the background with many unaware of its existence therefore there is no opportunity for community education or raising public awareness of this sustainability initiative.   4.2 ECO-FEEDBACK  Economic Sustainability Eco-feedback systems scored moderately in economic sustainability due to the relative low cost of the systems themselves but high costs of implementation. The cost of the system itself ranges from $264-5000 depending on the complexity of the system. The monitoring systems that will be installed in the Ponderosa building will cost approximately $150K per building. The amount of savings eco-feedback systems can provide range from 5-15% annually. Maintenance check-ups would be the only long-term management required therefore eco-feedback scored highly in technical feasibility. Different types of displays for eco-feedback range from metering systems, to computer screen displays, to televisions. The information displayed also varies: electricity consumption, gas consumption, historic consumption, daily consumption, temperatures, and comparisons with other homes or floors. In addition ambient displays alert householder to the fact that something related to their electricity supply has changed or will do so. For example, a flashing light was used to alert householders to turn off the air-conditioning and open the window when the temperature had dropped (Seligman et al. 1979).  Environmental Sustainability Eco-feedback systems scored well in environmental sustainability. Reductions from 6%-20% of electricity were seen throughout various types of eco-feedback systems. One example of research conducted in Japan with a complex interactive online display system yielded savings of 18% in electricity and 9% in gas in 10 households where the information was displayed (Ueno et al. 2005). Eco-feedback also did well in the GHG reduction of environmental sustainability—with research concluding a reduction of 20% of over the next 10 years, based off behavioral interventions alone (Dietz, Gardner, Gilligan, Stern, Vandenbergh)  Social Sustainability  Eco-feedback systems scored well in social sustainability and would bring many social benefits to the community. Having residents gain an environmental awareness and become environmentally literate would give them a common reason to practice a environmentally friendly lifestyle. A central communal monitoring system could promote a collective incentive of a community supporting a progressive cause. These systems could provide research potential to see how metering systems affect people’s  actions  and  how  much  of  difference  they  make.  Psychological  studies  could  be  done  in  addition  to energy reduction research. 13   Temporal Indicator The main focuses of eco-feedback systems would be to create long-term permanent reductions of energy use and keeping it at a constant reduced level. Eco-feedback systems have the ability to do this; it only depends on the attitudes and lifestyles of the residents. Mandatory tutorials for residents explaining how to use the systems and the benefits—ecologically and economically—it would bring, would help result in a collective positive awareness for the future.  4.3 ENERGY COMPETITION   Economic Sustainability Cost would include installation of an energy monitoring system on a per-floor basis. The cost of which is $150,000 per building ($300K total). There are potential additional costs of one part-time employee to support Residence staff and to ensure a quality event. This employee could be remunerated at 10hrs/week at 15.49$ (numbers based on Work Study student positions) at a total cost of 2,168$. The operational costs are minimal to negligible once the single employee and energy monitors are paid for. The following diagram demonstrates the complexity of initiation.  This program would require planning on behalf of residence staff in the form of advertising, gathering participants, utilizing a feedback system and establishing rules and prizes. Although the framework for the competition can be carried from year to year, renewed energy, commitment and time will be required for every competition. To avoid competition fatigue, new prizes every year along with difference energy saving concentrations (one year water conservation is focus another year electricity, etc.) can help to bring more variety each year. Once the system is installed it will only need minor maintenance checkups around the time of the competition. Very little specialized knowledge is required, as energy monitors are simple to use if not already in place, and the suggested Makahiki web application (see Brewer et al. 2011) is free and specifically designed for such events.  Environmental Sustainability  Oberlin  College’s  2005  competition  (Brewer  et  al.  2011)  saw  reductions  of  32%  over  a  2-week event, and similar reductions in the two weeks post-competition.  UBC’s  Do it in the Dark saw reductions of  27.6%  for  their  winning  residence  (Totem  Park).  Using  Marine  Drive  Tower’s  electrical  energy  consumption as a proxy for Ponderosa, and using a safe estimate of 20% reduction in energy for 1 month of the year, one expects reductions in the order of 3 kWwh/m2. For greenhouse gas reductions we used MDT as a proxy, the calculations shown above result in a 2% reduction in total energy use, which would equate to a 2% reduction in CO2 equivalent, or approximately 2 t.CO2eq.  Social Sustainability  There are many educational benefits to this competition; the most important is seeing that students become environmentally literate. This will infer that they understand the ecological affects of energy consumption and how their actions and habits affect the environment. For that reason, this competition scored high in this part of the matrix. Due to the feedback system characteristic in this approach and the high degree of participation, all participants and potentially all residents stand to learn about conservation and sustainability. This is a very active strategy, which will require enthusiastic community participation for success. There is a large scope of research potential, as shown in previous research, there is potential here to investigate questions relating to group behavior, non-financial motivators for energy conservation, and research how successful these strategies are at long-term conservation outcomes. 14   Temporal Indicator This option may be seen as a shorter term option, but when applied annually can give long-term results. This option demonstrates moderate to excellent economic sustainability due to its very low costs across the board and simplicity to implement. It does however require some sustained energy year after year to remain effective. This energy may have to come from a paid position . Additionally, this strategy demonstrates excellent social sustainability, as it has great learning potential both for the participants and for the academic community at large, as well as fostering engagement and community spirit. This strategy however performs rather poorly on the environmental sustainability sphere, due to its small overall effect on GHG emissions and energy consumption. However, it should be noted that this result is entirely dependent on the ability and incentive of participants to continue a degree of conservation-minded actions after the competition is concluded. These incentives could be supported in the form of permanent feedback systems, which residents will have become familiar with during the competition but will continue to be able to use throughout the year, or monthly prizes to the most energy conscious floor.  4.4 PHASE CHANGE MATERIALS   PCM insulation will reduce the daily flux of energy exchange between inside and outside the building. This reduces the need for heating. Review of the literature shows that PCMs may reduce the total heat flow through a (insulated) wall by up to 40%. The more conservative estimate of 30% is used in this evaluation to prevent overestimation. These figures translate into significant consumption reductions. The concept of PCM insulation is not new, gaining recognition in the 1980s. However, at the time available PCM materials were either toxic or flammable. Today, PCM products for commercial and residential use are non-toxic and non-flammable. Finally, PCMs are a chemical solution with potential environmental costs (like any building material). For example, one manufacturer boasts that their PCM product is environmentally friendly because it is 100% recyclable. This is a positive attribute, but this PCM is also made of palm oil; palm oil has raised criticism in recent years due to habitat destruction in favour of growing industrial palm oil crops. This should at the very least be acknowledged in the context of sustainability at UBC.   Economic Sustainability PCMs perform very well in this set of indicators. Capital costs for PCM insulation are higher than for conventional insulators. However, payback period is relatively rapid given the annual cost savings and absence of maintenance costs. Costs include purchase of the PCM product and less directly, installation costs (e.g. labour). Two companies have been identified, both based in the U.S. Research has shown that there is currently little interest in this technology in Canada. Manufacturers are found primarily in the U.S.A. and Europe. Cost of the BioPCM mat (one of the two products) is $2 per square foot. This product must be installed in addition to conventional insulation however. It was not possible to receive a direct estimate from Apple Blossom Energy for the PCM-cellulose insulation, but research documents by ORNL (the organization that developed the product) costs could range from $2 to /lb. Finally, manufacturers of this strategy ensure that it can be applied in regular construction. Also, since PCM materials in insulation are non-toxic they are not challenging to handle. PCMs meant for residential use are pre-manufactured products rather than PCMs in the chemical sense. Therefore they require no specialized knowledge to install.    15  Environmental Sustainability Review of the literature shows that PCM insulation can reduce energy load by up to 40%. The most common range was between 30% to 40%, therefore the more conservative number of 30% will be used to prevent overestimation. Using Marine Drive Towers as a proxy for one can estimate a reduction of 54 kWh/m2. Similarly, one can estimate a reduction of approximately 31 tCO2eq. The current carbon tax in British Columbia is $30/tonne of CO2. Using this number and the above CO2 reduction, one can estimate a reduced expenditure of $930 annually.    Social Sustainability PCM insulation is a passive technology installed inside walls; therefore it is not visible to residents. There is some potential to educate residents about the presence of the PCM but there is no engagement above this minimum level. Finally, there is some potential for meaningful academic involvement, albeit in indirect ways.  Temporal Indicator PCM insulation performs very well over time. It is a durable technology which produces cost savings annually compared to an insulation system without PCM (Phase Change Energy 2012).   4.5 CUMULATIVE MATRIX RESULTS:  Criteria Indicators Energy Competition Eco-feedback system PCM BMS A) Economic Criteria      Increased Economic Benefits Estimated capital Costs $3,000 $264-396 BioPCM  $2/sq.ft  PCM-Cellulose $2-5/lb.   $160 000  Estimated operating costs $3,000/year -- none $0.5-1/sq.ft.  2.Technical feasibility/ability to implement Complexity of initiative (1-3) 2 2 1 3  Complexity of long-term management  (1-3) 2 1 1 1  Level of specialized knowledge and materials (1-3) 1 1 2 2 16  B) Environmental Criteria      Increased Energy efficiency Estimated % reduction in kWh/m2 3 kWh/m2 20% per year 54kWh/m2 12-15%/year GHG Emission reductions Estimated reduction in CO2 (t. CO2.eq.) 2 tCO2eq. -- 31 tCO2 eq.  31 tCO2 eq. C) Social Criteria      Educational benefits Visibility of project (Y/N) Yes Yes No No  Communication provided to residents (1-3) 3 3 1 1 Community participation Is the strategy active (Y) or passive (N)? Yes Yes No No Research potential Academic community involvement potential (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes D) Temporal Criteria      Effectiveness over time Are benefits long term or short term (1-3) 1 2 3 3      5.0 DISCUSSION  Phase change materials (PCMs) and a residence-wide energy competition were chosen as the best options of the original four identified. Building Automated Systems (BMSs) were rejected because they are not likely to be successful at the unit-level scale. Residents prefer a certain degree of autonomy in regards to heating control in their living space therefore an automated system would dismiss this need for autonomy. The Eco-Feedback option was rejected on the grounds that a similar technology is already integrated into Ponderosa building plans. Plans for Ponderosa Hub indicate that the development will include some form of both building-level and unit-level monitoring systems. Therefore, this option was eliminated. Finally, PCMs and the energy competition were chosen on the grounds of significant energy savings and meaningful social engagement. The first option offers 17  consumption reduction potential and the latter enables behaviour to be examined and discussed. These two options together offer a robust energy reduction strategy which integrates environmental, economic and social sustainability.   5.1 ENERGY COMPETITION  Energy competitions encourage and promote a sense of community in dorms, create educational opportunities, enhance ecological awareness, and are commonly seen as fun and engaging experiences. The option we believe is the most engaging and innovative is an energy competition focused on sustainable behavior change and environmental literacy. The energy competition we based off  of  is  called  “The  Kukui  Cup”  which  was  implemented  in  the  University  of  Hawaii.  It  consists  of  a  general web application framework for energy competitions called Makahiki. The exceptional feature of this application is that it is adaptable to support the needs of other universities who want information technology, and can be configured to meet the requirements of their environment. The questions to be answered  as  to  why  we  chose  energy  competitions  consist  of:  “To  what  extent  and  in  what  ways  does  our the energy competition improve  the  “energy  literacy”  of  participating  students?  Second,  how  effective is our use of information technology to support behavioural change tools including goals, commitments, and near real-time energy feedback? Third, to what extent does our approach yield sustained  changes  in  energy  behavior,  and  what  factors  appear  to  influence  sustained  change?”  (Brewer, Lee, Johnson 2011) Students participating in an energy competition must be environmentally literate and able to relate to the foundation of the competition. Brewer, Lee, and Johnson define energy literacy as the understanding of energy concepts as they relate both on the individual level and on the national/global level. People need to understand how energy is being generated and consumed to further reduce their use. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviors are the three components of energy literacy. Students need obtain knowledge, such as understanding that the kilowatt-hour is the basic measure of electrical energy to fully comprehend their effects on the environment. Students must adapt positive and new attitudes towards the environment—for example, favoring renewable energy vs. fossil fuels. The last component, behavior, consists of changing everyday habits to begin the process of consistent energy reduction. The energy competition is designed to test the energy literacy of participants. There will be an assessment of the energy literacy of participants through a questionnaire presented via the contest website, as an activity that can be performed for points. Points are awarded—for the completion of tasks—through  the  competition  website  (powered  by  Makahiki)  to  increase  students’  energy  literacy  and in turn reduce energy usage. At the end of the competition awards will be presented based on points and energy consumption. Many awards will have supplementary prizes to incentivize participation. To engage residents in the competition, methods will be applied—such as a kick-off meeting at which free T-shirts and buttons will be distributed, in addition to signage on each floor about the competition, and a closing grand prize ceremony. The competition website will log data about participants’  actions  on  the  site.  All  participant  actions  and  events  will  be  logged  with  a  timestamp.  Participants can do this by: logging into the website, selecting a goal for floor participation, and submitting text to verify completion of an activity. These events can be used to create a profile of each the participants. The energy literacy surveys from before and after the competition can address the impact of the energy literacy of the participants. Increased scores in post-competition energy literacy would provide an indication that the activities of the competition may increase energy literacy. One basic way to measure the effectiveness of the information technology will be to examine the website logs to see how many residents actually participate in the competition by logging into the website, how often they log in, and how many tasks they complete. The efficiency of these tasks in improving energy literacy will be assessed by examining the correlation between Kukui Nut points 18  awarded per participant, and their performance on the energy literacy surveys. The relationship between the amount of energy usage amongst different floors  and  the  accumulated  “Kukui  Nut”  points  will also provide windows into the effectiveness of the information technology to support behavior change. By using the energy data, it is possible to determine the energy consumption of each floor before, during and after the competition. The amount of energy consumption after the competition ends is most important when looking for sustainable change, and the relationship between energy consumption, Kukui Nut points, website use, and energy literacy can help us see a sustainable change or not. Some of the cons of an energy competition in the Ponderosa Hub would be that there are no financial incentives. This is because residence hall fees are flat rate and do not change based on energy usage therefore participants would not financially benefit. Another con of the competition is the fact that is a only for a short period of time. This brings up the question: Will these changes last? Will students take what they learned during this competition with them? and will these habits become first nature? These are some questions for further research. This competition could help UBC attain achievable sustainability strategies by educating students on environmental literacy. Participants will do their part in changing their lifestyles and adapting towards more sustainable behaviors while being rewarded for their actions. Since this energy competition is designed to test the energy literacy of participants that means students must understand the methods of saving energy and why it is important. The competition is aimed towards changing habits to where they become first nature—for example, turning off the lights. Therefore, the energy competition would help UBC with their objectives of reducing energy consumption in addition to reducing the expected increase in electricity demand of 66% by 2020. The economic incentives for this competition consist of savings ranging from 5-15% annually. This will meet UBC economic incentive of reducing total costs associated with energy. This competition will do an exceptional job at meeting UBCs goal of increasing the understanding of sustainability inside and outside the university. Having students acquire knowledge on environmental literacy, which would consist of proper knowledge and skills about energy—for example, where it comes from, how we extract it, how it affects the environment, alternative approaches to energy. In addition participants will learn that to have positive attitudes and behaviors towards the environment, such as lifestyle changes that can  become  habits  to  reduce  one’s  carbon  footprint.  This  will  also  be  helping  UBC  work  towards  their  carbon neutral objectives. Creating a strong environmental literacy in students will create a strong progressive outcome for the environment and the University of British Columbia.  5.2 PHASE CHANGE MATERIALS  Phase change materials (PCMs) are materials whose chemical composition allows for storage and steady release of large amounts of energy. PCMs work on the principle of latent heat; PCM materials store and release energy as they change states from say, liquid to solid and back. Since this change of state occurs gradually (following temperature gradients), PCMs maintain comfortable temperatures over long periods. Therefore, heating load is minimized since residence units are not subject to massive temperature drops during the day or night. Studies have shown that PCMs in insulation applications can reduce heating load by up to 40%. Therefore PCM insulation helps UBC achieve both energy reduction targets as well as carbon emission targets (since these are related to energy use). This technology is also relatively inexpensive in the context of expected benefits. PCM insulation products are more expensive than conventional insulation. However, given that insulation of any kind is already an accepted building cost the true economic weight of PCMs should be viewed as the relative cost difference between conventional and PCM insulation (rather than in absolute terms). There are also no associated maintenance costs since PCMs are a passive technology. Therefore PCM insulation is a cost-effective solution to demand-side energy reduction. As explained above, PCMs 19  perform very well in relation to the economic, environmental and temporal indicators introduced in this report. Since these products have a large capacity to reduce energy demand they help UBC meet reduction targets in both kWh and carbon emissions. Similarly, there is an obvious correlation between energy reductions and cost savings therefore this option helps UBC implement sustainability strategies which are economically feasible. Also, since the BioPCM mat is not an insulation replacement it does not need to cover the entire wall space.  It is important to note that there may be some criticism regarding the soy and palm oil source of the BioPCM mat. In recent years commercial palm oil harvesting has received criticism for forest and ecosystem degradation (Obidzinski 2012). At the same time, this PCM is a non-petroleum product and is 100% recyclable. The PCM-cellulose blend is perhaps less contentious since the product is made from 85% recycled newspaper (Apple Blossom Energy 2012). In other terms, should a life cycle analysis be conducted the PCM-cellulose may perform better in terms of source impact. In the context of sustainability  the  Apple  Blossom  insulation  is  a  more  “local”  product  since  newspaper  is  available  locally  whereas palm oil is not. The local/global debate often favours local sourcing, especially in the context of carbon emissions when products are shipped long distances. The Apple Blossom insulation is also very good for sound proofing; this is an additional consideration for a large residence facility like Ponderosa (Apple Blossom 2012).  It is also of interest to note that both the BioPCM mat and the PCM-cellulose insulation are recognized by LEED (Phase Change Energy 2012; Apple Blossom Energy 20120). Finally, an opportunistic argument would be that the currently available BioPCM mats cannot restore the ecosystems that palm oil replaced. It is possible to achieve significant energy savings however and given the inability to revert what has been done BioPCM mats serve an important objective - reduced energy demand. It should be made clear that these are educated speculations inspired by sustainability literature and available manufacturer information. Regardless of immediate certainty these are important issues to consider. The discussion of sustainable building materials is a tricky one since most everything we apply will have an environmental impact. In this case it is important to weigh the costs and benefits; a meaningful discussion of these issues is demanded in the context of sustainability.  In terms of social sustainability objectives PCMs perform poorly. These products are passive technologies and do not allow for meaningful resident participation. However, there is potential to improve  PCMs’  social sustainability score via open dialogue. For example, residents can be made aware of the PCM insulation at Ponderosa. There is also the opportunity to generate research interest in PCMs; there is currently very little commercial interest in Canada or academic interest at UBC for PCMs. The performance of phase change materials in this category is why we feel coupling PCM insulation with a residence wide energy competition is a meaningful way to integrate all three components of sustainability. Finally, it is fitting that in a sustainability context a single strategy is not sufficient but rather a range of strategies which reflect the complexity of sustainability rhetoric.  Two commercial/residential applications of PCM have been identified. The first product is a PCM “mat”  meant  to  be  installed  in  addition  to  conventional  insulation.  The  second  is  a  PCM-Cellulose insulation blend meant to replace conventional insulation. The mat is manufactured by Phase Change Energy Solutions and the PCM-cellulose insulation is manufactured by Apple Blossom Energy. Both materials are designed to follow conventional building practices. The University of Washington has employed the BioPCM mat in an academic building (GreenTree 2012), though it was not possible to find high-profile residential applications. However, the BioPCM mat has been tested successfully in many experiments, all of which confirm the 30% energy savings potential (Phase Change Energy 2012). Similarly, the Apple Blossom Energy PCM-cellulose insulation has been tested successfully (Kony 2012).  Finally it is important to resolve the issue of toxicity. PCMs have been rejected for residential use in the past because the chemicals proposed were either toxic or flammable. Today we have effective 20  PCM products that are safe to use and have undergone testing to affirm manufacturer claims. Both the BioPCM mat and the PCM-cellulose insulation are non-toxic and non-flammable.  The energy competition described above does offer short-term energy savings. Long-term savings are still uncertain because they are highly dependent on behaviour change. This aspect of behaviour relating to sustainable energy use is why the energy competition is an excellent strategy for UBC’s  Ponderosa  development.  The  potential  for  community participation is massive. Moreover, this strategy touches on the often un-tapped resource of changing behaviour. Changing our own behaviour and that of others is challenging but this concept is at the heart of recent sustainability dialogues. Therefore, it is a strong option for the university.  In contrast, the PCM solutions offer significant energy saving potential but do not have the capacity to engage the community. The decision to present PCM as a final strategy was a pragmatic one; this technology does deliver energy savings. Together these two options offer a robust energy reduction strategy which reduces the demand load and generates opportunities for meaningful participation and even behaviour change in the long-term.    REFERENCES   2010 Carbon Neutral Action Report. (2010.) Retreived from <>  Achieving Energy Savings with Building Automation Systems. 12 Feb 2102. <>.  Apple Blossom Energy. Cellulose Insulation. 27 March 2012. <>  Berges, Mario, Nuno J. Nunes, Adrian Ocneanu, Felipe Quintal, and , eds. "SINAIS: Home Consumption Package: a low-cost eco- feedback energy-monitoring research platform." .N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb 2012. <>.  Brewer, Johnson, Lee, Xu. Makahiki: An Open Source Game Engine for Energy Education and Conservation. InformaƟon  and  Computer  Sciences  University  of  Hawai‘i  at  Ma  ̄noa.  Brewer, R.S., Lee, G.E. 2011. The Kukui Cup: a dorm energy competition focused on sustainable behavior change and energy literacy. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.  Doukas, H. (2007). Intelligent building energy management system using rule sets. Building and environment , 42 (10), 35-62.  Government of British Columbia.University Endowment Lands. URL: (last accessed January 29, 2012).  GreenTree. BioPCmat adds to natural comfort in University of Washington building. March 27 2012. <>. 21   Harvard Sustainability Initiative: Building Management Systems. 22 March 2012. <>.  Jain R.K., et al., Assessing eco-feedback interface usage and design to drive energy efficiency in buildings, Energy Buildings (2012), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.033 Kosny , J. 2010. Understanding Potential for Phase Change Material Applications in Residential Buildings .". Ed. Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy. Denver, CO. <>.  Kosny, J., Yarbrough, D., Miller, W., Petrie, T., Childs, P., Syed, A.M. 2008. 2006/2007 Field testing of cellulose fiber insulation enhanced with phase change material.  Natural Resources Canada. Comprehensive Energy Use Database, 1990 to 2009. URL: (last accessed January 29, 2012).  Obidzinski, K., R. Andriani, H. Komarudin, and A. Andrianto. 2012. Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 17(1):25.  PCM Products Ltd. Phase Change Materials Thermal Management Solutions. 13 Feb 2012. <>.  PCM Thermal Solutions Inc. Thermal Management Consulting. 13 Feb 2012. <>.  Siemens Canada: Building Automation System. 22 March 2012. < g_automation_system.aspx>.   Sintov, N. D., Desario, G., Prescott, C. A. 2010. Effectiveness of a Competition-based intervention in promoting pro-environmental behavior in a university residence. ACEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings. Smith, W. and Pett, J. 2005. Energy efficiency refurbishment programmes help, but are the end-users doing their bit?. ECEEE 2005 Summer Study – What Works and Who delivers?  Storey,S. GHG and cost calculations. UBC Sustainability Office Sustainability at UBC. Energy Management. URL:  sustainability/greening-the-campus/energy-management (Last accessed January 29, 2012)  Stantec Consulting. "Alternative Energy Feasibility Report For University of British Columbia." (June 2010.) Retreived from EoI/Phase_Two_Step_Three_june_11.pdf.  Tyagi V.V., Buddhi D. 2005. PCM thermal storage in buildings: A state of art. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 11 (2007). 1146-1166.  UBC.UBC campus alternate energy feasibility study. (2011). Retrieved from  UBC Campus and Community Planning. 2010a. UBC takes top honors in BC-wide energy-saving Competition. (last accessed February 12, 2012).  UBC.2008/2009.Case study/ green building. Retrieved from UBC. 2010b. UBC Carbon Neutral Action Report.  UBC Public Affairs.UBC Facts and Figures 2009/2010. URL: (last accessed January 29, 2012).  UBC Student Housing and Hospitality Services. Student Housing Vancouver. URL: (last accessed January 29, 2012).  UBC Sustainability. Energy. URL: (last accessed January 29, 2012).  University Neighbourhood Association.About Us. Retrieved from <>.  Wilcove, D., Koh, L. 2010. Addressing the threats to biodiversity from oil-palm agriculture. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19(4).p.999-1007. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-009-9760-x      23  APPENDIX A – ENERGY USE COMPOSITION  Type of energy Use % Share (apartments) % share GHG emissions Space Heating 54.8 (35.8) 65 (43.2) Water Heating 21.6 (34.4) 33.9 (54.8) Appliances 16.9 (25.1) 1.2 (2.0) Lighting 5.9 (4.4) 0.0 (0.0) Space Cooling 0.8 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0)     APPENDIX B – ENERGY CONSUMPTION AT UBC RESIDENCES  Residential Units Electricity Cost ($/m2) Steam Cost ($/m2) Combined BEPI (kWh/m2) GHG Emissions (t.CO2.eq.) Totem Park 3.01 2.92 179.53 785.1 Walter H. Gage 2.74 2.99 176.04 1302.81 Place Vanier 3.52 5.04 272.41 1229.19 Marine Drive Towers 8.10 n/a 180.49 104.4 24   APPENDIX C – INDICATOR MATRIX   Criteria Indicator(s) Objective Justification  Economic Indicators    Increased economic benefits  1. Estimated capital costs 2. Estimated operating costs  To help UBC ensure ongoing economic viability.  *From Inspirations and Aspirations: UBC Sustainability Strategy 2006-2010; Final Report   Overconsumption of energy causes unwarranted economic costs to the university.  For sustainability measures to last they must be economically practical. Technical feasibility/ ability to implement  A. Complexity of initiative 1- simple 2- some complications 3- complex  B. Complexity of long-term management 1- simple 2-some complications 3-complex  C. Level of specialized knowledge and materials required (e.g. engineering) 1- no specialized knowledge/materials required 2-some degree of specialized knowledge/materials To develop realistic and achievable sustainability strategies, and to help UBC understand and manage project risk.   These indicators are necessary to determine the level of effort required to bring the initiative into fruition. 25  required 3-high level expertise/materials required   Environmental Indicators     Increased energy efficiency  1.Estimated % reduction in kWh/m2 *based on literature and baseline proxy Marine Drive Towers To help UBC achieve one of its major objectives in sustainable design: to reduce energy consumption.  To help the Province of BC meet its objective to reduce the expected increase in electricity demand by 2020 by 66%.  Energy is finite.  Overconsumption of energy causes faster depletion of natural resources.   Accurate and quantitative description of reduction in energy use.  GHG emission reductions  1.Estimated reduction in C02 (in tonnes)  2.Reduction in carbon tax exposure  *based on baseline proxy Marine Drive Towers To help UBC reach its carbon neutral objective by the timeline set.  Climate change is a critical global issue    Social Indicators     Educational benefits  A.Visibility of project Y/N  B. Level of communication of information to residents  1-minimal information To help UBC increase understanding of sustainability inside and outside the university.  *From Inspirations and Aspirations: UBC Sustainability Strategy 2006-2010; Final  Education is a fundamental tool for changing perspectives and behavior toward sustainability.  The indicator garners a sense of how aware residents are of sustainability actions. 26  provided 2-substantial amount of information provided 3-comprehensive and meaningful information provided        Report   Establishment of new modes of behavior.  Community participation  1.Passive vs. active strategy Active – 1 point Passive – 0 points     To help UBC increase understanding of sustainability inside and outside the university.  *From Inspirations and Aspirations: UBC Sustainability Strategy 2006-2010; Final Report   Participation is an effective means for building social capital (e.g. trust and understanding of sustainability issues). Research potential  1.Can the academic community get involved Yes-1 point No- 0 points This indicator would specifically integrate learning and research opportunities into the operations branch of UBC. Thus, this criterion helps UBC to further integrate sustainability across operations, teaching, learning and research.   *From Inspirations and Aspirations: UBC Sustainability Strategy 2006-2010; Final Report  UBC is a research institution, with a central mandate to advance sustainability on its campus and beyond through research. 27   Temporal Indicator    Effectiveness over time  Are the benefits felt on the long term or short term 1-under a year 2-1 to 5 years 3- greater than 5 years  We aim to create sustainability strategies which are long-lasting and therefore have greater overall effects.  This is important to maximize the returns of any sustainability strategy undertaken    


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items