You are on page 1of 97

Guideline

Absorption Chillers
Southern California Gas Company New Buildings Institute Advanced Design Guideline Series

New Buildings Institute November, 1998

Acknowledgments
This Advanced Design Guideline was developed by the New Buildings Institute for the Southern California Gas Company, contract P13311, part of SoCalGas’ Third Party Initiatives Program for 1998. Project managers for SoCalGas included Taimin Tang, Lilia Villarreal and James Green. This project was managed by the New Buildings Institute, Douglas Mahone, Executive Director. Subcontractors on this project were: Heschong Mahone Group: Catherine Chappell, Project Manager, Jon McHugh, Nehemiah Stone and Kalpana Kuttaiah GARD Analytics: Robert Henninger, Jason Glazer, and Mike Witte Eskinder Berhanu Associates The Expert Advisory Panel, which reviewed and advised the project, included: Gary Nowakowski, Gas Research Institute; William Saulino, American Gas Cooling Center, Inc.; David Goldstein, Natural Resources Defense Council; Tamy BenEzra; Peter Schwartz, LAS & Assoc.; Jeffrey Johnson, New Buildings Institute

New Buildings Institute 11626 Fair Oaks Blvd. #302 Fair Oaks CA 95628 (Sacramento area) (916) 966-9916 Fax: (916) 962-0101 E-mail: info@newbuildings.org Web: www.newbuildings.org

II

SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: PREFACE ..................................................1 CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION ............................................3 A. Applications.........................................................3 B. Types ...................................................................4 Single Effect ........................................................4 Double Effect ......................................................4 Triple Effect ........................................................4 Hybrid Systems ...................................................5 C. Efficiencies ..........................................................5 D. Benefits................................................................5 E. Limitations...........................................................6 CHAPTER 3: HISTORY AND STATUS ...............................7 A. History .................................................................7 B. Current Market Share ..........................................7 C. Standards and Ratings..........................................8 Coefficient of Performance (COP) ......................8 Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) .....................8 Applied Part Load Value (APLV) .......................8 D. Economics/Cost Effectiveness.............................9 Energy Rates and Billing Structure .....................9 Performance Characteristics ................................9 Operating Characteristics ....................................9 Estimating Annual Energy Savings ...................10 E. Sizes...................................................................10 F. Equipment Manufacturers..................................10 G. Equipment Installations .....................................10 AT&T Office Building, St. Louis, Missouri......10 FERC Office Building, Washington, D. C. .......10 Walter and Lois Curtis Middle School, Allen, Texas ......................................................11 Greene Hospital, San Diego, California ............11 Philadelphia Convention Center ........................12 CHAPTER 4: DESIGN ANALYSIS ...................................13 A. Overview ...........................................................13 B. Energy Savings ..................................................14 C. Cost Effectiveness .............................................14 CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS ............17 A. Using the Graphs ...............................................17 Annual Energy Cost Savings Graphs.................17 Cost Effectiveness Graphs.................................17 B. Energy Savings Graphs......................................19 Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption Chiller vs. Standard Efficiency Electric Chiller.....................................................19 Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Electric Chiller.....................................................27 Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller ....34 C. Cost Effectiveness Graphs .................................38

Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption vs. Standard Efficiency Electric Chiller 38 Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Electric Chiller .................................................... 54 Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller ... 70 CHAPTER 6: BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... 79 CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX............................................... 81 A. Building Type Descriptions .............................. 81 B. Summary of Utility Rates.................................. 83 C. Equipment First Cost......................................... 86 D. Scalar Ratio and SIR ......................................... 87 Scalar Ratios Simplified ................................... 87 Selecting a Scalar Ratio .................................... 88 Savings to Investment Ratios (SIRs)................. 88 Advanced Economic Analysis .......................... 88

ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE

III

...................................... 20 Figure 14 ......... DFDE vs......................................Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs......... Std.....38 Figure 34 .......... Eff.................... High Efficiency Chiller for School ... 22 Figure 16 ......... Std....44 Figure 39 ..............Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs..35 Figure 30 ........... DFDE vs.....Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs......................... Chiller ..List of Figures Figure 1 ..... Chiller .......................... 27 Figure 20 .........Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Hotel .Cooling Equipment Type Based on Size .............................. Eff.. 21 Figure 15 ................ Standard Efficiency Chiller for Hospital.................................46 Figure 41 ....................SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic............................... Chiller .................... High Efficiency Chiller for Large Retail .................... 15 Figure 12 .................. Std....36 Figure 31 .........Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs............34 Figure 28 ....35 Figure 29 ................ DFDE vs.............. Std............ Standard Efficiency Chiller for Hotel....Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Large Retail .......... 28 Figure 21 ...........Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs............. Eff.48 Figure 43 .............. Chiller...Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs...... Chiller ...........Double-Effect Absorption Refrigeration Cycle ..Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Hospital ........ Std...... 4 Figure 4 ................ 29 Figure 22 ..................47 Figure 42 .... Resource COP ..... 23 Figure 17 ....... Chiller ......... High Efficiency Chiller for Medium Office..........IPVL Calculation Assumptions............SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Office... DFDE vs................................... 13 Figure 10 .........Building Type and Size ............. Std......................43 Figure 38 ... Eff........Energy Cost Savings Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for School .............. Eff.............SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hotel.Cooling Equipment Efficiencies ............................................... Eff...Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.............................SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel.........SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office..Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs............Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.................................SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital......... Chiller ....... Std. 24 Figure 18 .................SIR for DFDE vs................................. 4 Figure 3 ...... 25 Figure 19 ......Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs..................Cities used for Cooling Analysis.... Standard Efficiency Chiller for Large Office ................ Chiller ..................... Eff......... DFDE vs.......45 Figure 40 .....Simple Absorption Cycle Diagram .............Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Medium Office ............ 13 Figure 9 .... Standard Efficiency Chiller for Clinic............SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office. Chiller......... DFDE vs..........SIR for various marginal electric costs for Medium Office...Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs......42 Figure 37 ......... DFDE vs.......49 Figure 44 ....................... 5 Figure 5 .................................................. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Large Retail. Eff..................SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hospital........36 Figure 32 ....................... Standard Efficiency Chiller for School.................................... 19 Figure 13 . High Efficiency Chiller for Clinic................ High Efficiency Chiller for Hospital......... Eff.......................................... DFDE vs...Single-Effect Absorption Refrigeration Cycle .......50 IV SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .......... Std................. Std................. 31 Figure 24 . Std..... Std....Gas Absorption Cooling Market Conditions...... Chiller .............. DFDE vs.......Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Large Office.............. 8 Figure 8 ..................37 Figure 33 ...... 3 Figure 2 .. Electric Chillers.....SIR for various marginal gas costs for School..............32 Figure 25 ........................41 Figure 36 .................... DFDE vs........ Chiller ..... Eff.......................... Standard Efficiency Chiller for Medium Office.....Energy Cost Savings Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Clinic ......... Eff........Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs............. Eff....Site vs...............40 Figure 35 .. DFDE vs.. 30 Figure 23 ......................................... High Efficiency Chiller for Hotel........... 14 Figure 11 ........Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs....33 Figure 26 ...........SIR for various marginal electric costs for Clinic. High Efficiency Chiller for Large Office ..Triple-Effect Absorption Cycle ...34 Figure 27 ... 7 Figure 7 ........................................Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.... Std.... 5 Figure 6 .....................

............SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic........... ..................................Figure 45 ............... DFDE vs............................Example Present Worth Calculation ..... DFDE vs....... DFDE vs...Range of Typical Scalars......................... High Eff...................................................54 Figure 49 ................SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel.SIR for various marginal gas costs for School.. DFDE vs.......... DFDE vs...SIR for various marginal electric costs for Medium Office............ High Eff..... Chiller .........................69 Figure 63 ......... High Eff... Chiller ........SIR for various marginal electric costs for School........... DFDE vs...... DFDE vs................... Chiller .............. 88 Figure 72 ....... Chiller .........SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital.. DFDE vs............................ 76 Figure 69 .59 Figure 53 ..SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Retail.. High Eff.........67 Figure 61 ...................60 Figure 54 ..... Chiller .......... High Eff.......... Chiller . DFDE vs.......51 Figure 46 ...............62 Figure 56 ....... DFDE vs............. Electric Chillers........ 77 Figure 70 ............................SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel....63 Figure 57 .................SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Retail............................................... 73 Figure 66 .SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office.....SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office.... DFDE vs. High Eff..64 Figure 58 ..........65 Figure 59 ......... 75 Figure 68 .......61 Figure 55 ................... DFDE vs................................ 74 Figure 67 ........ DFDE vs....SIR for various marginal electric costs for School.................Variable Effects on Scalar.......SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital....................................................................... Chiller ..... DFDE vs..SIR for various marginal gas costs for School.................. Eff.... DFDE vs..........SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hospital.... High Eff............ Chiller ............SIR for various marginal electric costs for Clinic........................................................... High Eff.57 Figure 51 .SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail......... 72 Figure 65 ....................................... High Eff.....SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office...............................SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Office......................66 Figure 60 .. Chiller ...........SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic............... Chiller ..............SIR for DFDE vs.... Chiller ...................... Chiller .... 78 Figure 71 ....... Chiller .. Single Effect Absorption Chillers . Chiller .............68 Figure 62 .........52 Figure 47 .............................. ..........58 Figure 52 .......... 90 Figure 73 .............SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office. High Eff........ DFDE vs......................................................................SIR for Double vs............ Eff......56 Figure 50 .. High Eff.... High Eff.......SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hotel... Std......70 Figure 64 ............ Chiller ...... Chiller .. Std........... High Eff... Std................... High Eff....SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail................................ Eff........ DFDE vs.. Chiller ...............53 Figure 48 .. 90 ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE V .... High Eff......................................SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail.

.

the New Buildings Institute recommends that building designers give careful consideration to measure interactions and to integrated systems design. ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 1 . or select markets. increases in building envelope insulation can often reduce HVAC loads enough to reduce the sizing requirements for the heating and cooling equipment. the local energy costs. and evaluators to make informed decisions on the cost-effectiveness of energy saving measures. and in market transformation programs. how it is best implemented. These Guidelines describe efficiency measures that are more advanced than standard practice. especially because these interactions can cover a huge range of options depending on the climate. This is done primarily for clarity of the analysis. how cost effective it is. They provide the technical basis for defining efficiency measures used in individual building projects. The cost effectiveness of one measure is often influenced by other measures. and its systems. It is beyond the scope of this Guideline to attempt to address the interactions between measures. It is not uncommon for the cost savings from smaller equipment to offset increased insulation costs. For example. program planners. This Guideline deals specifically with gas absorption systems. which encompass the full range of efficiency options for a building. the building. This Advanced Design Guideline is based on careful evaluation and analysis of gas absorption cooling to determine when it is appropriate. yet still cost effective in all. These Guidelines are intended to be a step toward a comprehensive approach to design specifications. This means that the analysis assumes that all other features of the building are fixed. In reality. and allows one to focus on the advantages and economics of the single measure. most new building design situations involve multiple energy efficiency options. Design Guidelines are used by individuals and organizations interested in making buildings more energy efficient. There are two basic types of gas chillers: absorption systems and gas engine driven chiller systems. Nevertheless. in voluntary energy efficiency programs.CHAPTER 1: PREFACE These Advanced Design Guidelines have been developed by the New Buildings Institute in cooperation with Southern California Gas Company to assist designers. and how its energy savings are described. It should be remembered that this Guideline document deals primarily with the comparison of a single efficiency measure and its baseline. This Guideline can provide the starting point by providing insight into the performance of one measure.

.

driving the refrigerant back out of the absorbent. which use an electric chiller for base load. The refrigerant then goes to the condenser to be cooled back down to a liquid. Ideal candidates for gas absorption applications are those where the peak demand charge is high. The LiBr/H2O system uses lithium bromide as the absorber and water as the refrigerant. with a gas flame at the bottom. are an attractive option in regions with high electric costs. or as part of an integrated cooling and heating facility. The ammonia-water system uses water as the absorber and ammonia as the refrigerant. Absorption chillers are either lithium bromide-water (LiBr/H2O) or ammonia-water equipment. a process that extracts heat from the building. Since cooling is generally the primary cause of sharp spikes in a building’s electric load profile. The simplest absorption machines are residential refrigerators. Gas absorption chillers can be economically installed as a cooling only system. good applications for absorption chillers High Pressure Vapor Heat Condenser Work Compressor Low Pressure Vapor Evaporator Heat Figure 1 . The cooled refrigerant is released through an expansion valve into the evaporator. Gas cooling minimizes or flattens the electric peaks in a building’s electric load. the cost difference between electricity and natural gas is sufficient to justify absorption chillers. The absorption cooling system should be operated to maximize electric peak-shaving in areas with high demand charges or extended ratchet electricity rates. Applications The primary variable that drives the economics of gas absorption cooling is the electric demand charge. In summary. The evaporator allows the refrigerant to evaporate and to be absorbed by the absorbent. A. but the basic principle is the same.Simple Absorption Cycle Diagram ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 3 .CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION Absorption chillers differ from the more prevalent compression chillers in that the cooling effect is driven by heat energy. which is heated by the gas or steam. ice cubes at the top and no electricity involved. and the cycle repeats. while the absorbent is pumped back to the absorber. Additional cost savings can be realized through the use of heat recovery. rather than mechanical energy. The absorption chiller cycle is shown in Figure 1. In many parts of the country. Hybrid systems. An absorption chiller is larger and more complicated. The combined fluids then go to the generator. and the gas engine-driven chiller for peak load. it is advantageous to investigate alternatives that can reduce this peak.

The double-effect chiller differs from the single-effect in that there are two condensers and two generators to allow for more refrigerant boil-off from the absorbent solution. In direct-fired units. they have a higher initial manufacturing cost. 4 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . The thermal efficiency of single-effect absorption systems is low. Double-effect absorption chillers are used for air-conditioning and process cooling in regions where the cost of electricity is high relative to natural gas.CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION have the following characteristics: ♦ ♦ ♦ High demand charges Coincident need for air conditioning and heating Maintenance and service requirements are acceptable to building owner chillers can be used to produce chilled water for air conditioning and for cooling process water. because of increased corrosion rates (higher operating temperatures than single-effect machines). is readily available. and are available in capacities from 7. Indirect-fired units use steam or some other transfer fluid that brings in heat from a separate source. absorber. Most new single-effect machines are installed in applications where waste heat is readily available. double . generator and condenser. Single Effect The single-effect “cycle” refers to the transfer of fluids through the four major components of the refrigeration machine . Figure 3 shows the double effect absorption cycle on a Pressure-Temperature diagram. such as a boiler or heat recovered from an industrial process. Pressure B. The higher temperature generator uses the externallysupplied steam to boil the refrigerant from the weak absorbent. larger heat exchanger surface areas.Single-Effect Absorption Refrigeration Cycle Single-effect LiBr/H2O absorption chillers use low pressure steam or hot water as the heat source.or indirect-fired. The refrigerant vapor from the high temperature generator is condensed and the heat produced is used to provide heat to the low temperature generator. and more complicated control systems. the low efficiency has inhibited the cost competitiveness of single-effect systems. Although the technology is sound.5 to 1. Hybrid systems. Double-effect absorption chillers are also used in applications where high pressure steam. The water is able to evaporate and extract heat in the evaporator because the system is under a partial vacuum. Although the double-effect machines are more efficient than single-effect machines. which are relatively common with absorption chillers. the heat source can be gas or some other fuel that is burned in the unit. combine gas systems and electric systems for load optimization and flexibility. as shown in the Pressure-Temperature diagram in Figure 2.or triple-effect. There are special materials considerations. such as district heating.Double-Effect Absorption Refrigeration Cycle HEAT EXCHANGER EVAPORATOR ABSORBER Figure 2 . Single-effect These systems use gas-fired combustors or high pressure steam as the heat source. Double Effect The desire for higher efficiencies in absorption chillers led to the development of double-effect LiBr/H2O systems.evaporator. and as single. Types Absorption chillers are generally classified as direct.500 tons. Pressure Temperature HIGH-TEMPERATURE HIGH-TEMPERATURE CONDENSOR GENERATOR LOW-TEMPERATURE CONDENSOR LOW-TEMPERATURE GENERATOR EVAPORATOR ABSORBER Temperature CONDENSOR GENERATOR Figure 3 .

65 . C. The use of absorption chillers eliminates the high incremental cost of electricity.6. which accounts for the source to site efficiency of the fuel. and the characteristics of the local gas and electric rates. The hybrid approach will play a larger role in cooling options as utility rate structures continue to be more variable.CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION Triple Effect The triple-effect cycles are the next logical improvement over the double-effect. divided by the net heat input (in comparable units such as kBtu).0 out of an ideal 2. Hybrid Systems Hybrid systems capture the best of both gas and electric usage by installing an absorption system in parallel with an electric vapor compression system. The cost.65 0.1 ABSORBER Figure 4 . Pressure HIGH-TEMPERATURE Temperature CONDENSOR depend on the nature of the cooling load. The specifics of any hybrid system design Electric Absorption 2. The refrigerant vapor from the high and medium temperature generators is condensed and the heat is used to provide heat to the next lower temperature generator. Chiller Site COP Source -to-Site Factor 0.1. The hybrid plant crystallizes the concept of a system design that maximizes the flexibility of “time dependent” energy selection.8 out of an ideal 1. it is not good for comparing gas and electric chiller efficiencies. The absorption chiller is used as the primary source during the on-peak hours. A second. Single-effect absorption chillers have COPs of approximately 0. as needed. the electricity-driven chiller takes advantage of the lowest time-of-use costs during offpeak hours.59 .1 0. The COP metric is also applied to electric chillers. so system costeffectiveness will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.1.1. the single-effect chillers are normally used in applications that recover waste heat such as waste steam from power plants or boilers. since COP is based on site energy. Triple-effect absorption chillers are under development. A better metric is the Resource COP. Figure 4 shows the triple effect absorption cycle on a Pressure-Temperature diagram. Double-effect absorption chillers have COPs of approximately 1. The refrigerant from all three condensers flows to an evaporator where it absorbs more heat. One uses two condensers and two absorbers to achieve the triple effect. Figure 5 shows typical values for both electric chillers and absorption chillers. as the next step in the evolution of absorption technology. Since the COPs are less than one. The higher efficiency levels would open wider markets for absorption chillers. Efficiencies MIDDLE-TEMPERATURE CONDENSOR MIDDLE-TEMPERATURE LOW-TEMPERATURE CONDENSOR LOW-TEMPERATURE GENERATOR GENERATOR Efficiencies of absorption chillers are described in terms of coefficient of performance (COP). uses three condensers as well as a third condenser subcooler. In a typical hybrid system. prototype triple effect absorption chillers have calculated COPs from 1.54 . but there are many applications where a hybrid system is advantageous. however. However. accounting for electricity generation and transmission losses.2 ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 5 .0 .6-0.Triple-Effect Absorption Cycle Two different triple-effect absorption chiller cycles are capable of substantial performance improvements over equivalent double-effect cycles.0.6.4 to 1.27 0. This is especially true for large facilities with sophisticated energy management personnel who can optimize system performance and energy costs. Triple-effect systems offer the possibility of thermal efficiencies equal to those of electrical chillers. with the vapor compression chiller used for the remainder of the load. While not yet commercially available.0. which is defined as the refrigeration effect.91 Resource COP 0. the double condenser coupled (DCC) triple-effect. will be higher.

Benefits equipped with an auxiliary heat exchanger the hot water circuit of the auxiliary heat exchanger includes the necessary control devices. While gas-fired chillers produce emissions at the site.75% loss in the initial energy resource of the fuel. Limitations Cost is the primary constraint on the widespread adoption of absorption chiller systems. then a true comparison of equipment cost and annual maintenance costs between an electric and gas system must consider the electric centrifugal chiller plus a boiler. In contrast. The restructuring of the electric utility industry adds significant complexity and uncertainty to the HVAC design and operation. and first costs. Elimination of the use of CFC and HCFC refrigerants Quiet. compared to consuming gas directly.energy ” plant. Gas absorption systems have several non-energy benefits over conventional electric systems including: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ If the equipment is to provide heating as well as cooling. Typical electricity generation and distribution results in an approximately 65% . electricity costs per Btu are typically three to four times the cost per Btu for electricity. The size of condenser water pumps is generally a function of the flow rate per unit cooling capacity. due to the larger volume of water. Gas cooling systems eliminate some of the variability associated with electric rate structures. to be less than or roughly equal to those of an electric chiller and boiler. including maintenance.Site vs. while a hybrid system maximizes the flexibility of an “all. so the cost of a unit of output (refrigeration) can often be lower with an absorption unit. The primary energy benefit of gas cooling systems is reduction in operating costs by avoiding peak electric demand charges and time-of-day rates. E. their exact economics must be worked out on a project-by-project basis. operating. The results of such a comparison should show the direct-fired absorption chiller annualized costs. Similarly. absorption chillers require larger cooling tower capacity than electric chillers. 6 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . Natural gas cooling systems have greater resource efficiency than similar electric systems. Resource COP A direct-fired absorption system can supply hot water in addition to chilled water if: ♦ ♦ D. Although absorption chillers can be quite economical in the right situation. combustion efficiencies can be high and harmful emissions comparatively low for a well-operated absorption unit. therefore requiring larger pumps.CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION Figure 5 . The use of gas absorption chillers eliminates the high incremental cost of electric cooling. Utilizing waste heat that would otherwise be unused greatly increases the cost-effectiveness of the systems. The key is operational flexibility. because they are not used in the absorption cycle. only about 5% to 10% of the fuel resource is lost with a gas system. Cooling technologies with lower COPs typically require a significantly higher condenser water flow rate than those technologies with higher COPs. Additionally. The low thermal efficiency of single-effect absorption systems has made them non-competitive except in situations with readily available free waste heat. vibration-free operation Lower pressure systems with no large rotating components High reliability Low maintenance The contribution that gas cooling technologies can make to the goal of improved emissions is substantial. Absorption systems also require greater pump energy than electric chillers. Legislative activities are focused on pushing the nation toward energy-efficient technologies that reduce harmful emissions. Natural gas-powered air-conditioning equipment offers substantial advantages to the environment in regard to CFCs and HCFCs. Even double effect systems are not cost-effective in many applications.

Estimates for the price premium over a double-effect chiller range from 25 to 30 percent. Absorption cooling and gas absorption chillers were successfully marketed on the basis of lower operating costs. As of the end of 1997. Ammonia-water absorption equipment was found to be well suited for large capacity industrial applications that required low temperatures for process cooling. In the 1960s the natural gas industry was very effective in promoting this alternative to electric-driven cooling. The Trane B. the double-condenser coupled (DCC) cycle. Counteracting this. Absorption cycles have been used in air-conditioning applications for over 50 years. with commercialization expected in 2000 or 2001. Current Market Share The two basic types of gas chillers are absorption systems and gas engine chiller systems. This number is expected to grow. Figure 6 shows the gas absorption cooling market conditions from 1988 to 1996. Lithium bromide-water absorption equipment is currently used to produce chilled water for space cooling and can also be used to produce hot water for space heating and process heating. and perhaps more importantly. manufacturers were conducting research and development (R&D) programs aimed at producing triple-effect absorption chillers.S. however. two U. as a result of rising electric rates and the increased efficiency.water absorption chiller was built. and better system performance. 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Units Shipped 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: AGCC Figure 6 . The goal of these large commercial chiller “programs” is to produce a triple-effect chiller that improves cooling efficiency by 30 to 50 percent. A basic three-condenser-three-generator triple-effect cycle was patented in 1985. compared to double-effect absorption chillers currently on the market. Since 1987 when the Montreal Protocol first came into existence many issues surrounding electric cooling including the use of CFC refrigerants and electric utility rates. Since 1995 several factors have helped the absorption cooling market including: the opening of large natural gas equipment manufacturing plants in the United States. and accessibility of gas equipment. the gas crunch of the seventies curtailed gas cooling promotion and forced prospective buyers to remain with conventional electric systems. was patented in 1993. An alternate triple-effect cycle.CHAPTER 3: HISTORY AND STATUS A. have become increasingly complicated. History Company. Field testing is expected next year. Additionally. York International has partnered with DOE in a cost-shared program to build a triple-effect absorption chiller utilizing the DCC cycle. gas costs have remained relatively stable while the technology itself has improved. In the late 1950s the first working double-effect lithium bromide . has conducted research to develop a tripleeffect chiller utilizing a dual loop cycle. Coincident with these electric cooling issues. The potential for the gas chillers is attractive in regions with high electric demand charges. innovations in compressors. and controls increased the performance and decreased the cost of electric cooling systems. major developments in equipment financing and performance contracting. electric motors. Natural gas equipment accounts for 8 to 10 percent of the market for larger chillers.Gas Absorption Cooling Market Conditions ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 7 . reliability.

as well as electric chillers. A lower entering cooling water temperature corresponds to part load (reduced) cooling demand.25 Mfgr. It was originally conceived as part of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90. B. that results from a drop in ambient temperature. Although IPLV is a useful way to compare different manufacturers’ chiller models.. Gas absorption chillers. are rated to Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute ARI-550-92 conditions as listed below: Chilled Water Conditions: ♦ ♦ ♦ 100 75 50 25 Figure 7 . it is not good for comparing gas and electric chiller efficiencies. For applications where cooling load is not significantly affected by ambient temperature conditions.5ºF reduction in the entering cooling water temperature for every 10% drop in cooling load. except that actual chilled and condenser water temperatures and flow rates are used. The disadvantage is the additional performance data that needs to be collected.CHAPTER 3: HISTORY AND STATUS C. or refrigeration effect. Rated COP A B C D Part Load Hours (%) 17 39 33 11 Coefficient of Performance (COP) The performance of gas cooling equipment is usually rated in terms of COP. but since it is based on site energy. The method assumes that the chiller operates at a specific part load for a specific number of hours during the year. IPLV. IPLV is an industry standard for calculating an annual COP based on a typical load profile and the part load characteristics of chillers. The advantage of using the APLV over the IPLV. when cooling load is dominated by internal gains) this estimate of part load performance may not provide accurate results.IPVL Calculation Assumptions COP ratings A.11 A B C D COP IPLV APLV Figure 7 provides the assumption and appropriate values for the equation. (e. there are several metrics that are used to define absorption chiller efficiency.0 gpm/ton condenser water flow Air Cooled Condensers: ♦ ♦ ♦ 95ºF air supply temperature 20ºF temperature differential between air supply and condensing refrigerant 2ºF refrigeration system loss to the condenser Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) Another measurement of chiller efficiency is Integrated Part Load Value.33 + 0. in Btu. divided by the energy input. Note that the calculation allows for a 2.17 + 0.g.4 gpm/ton chilled water flow Water Cooled Condensers: ♦ ♦ ♦ 85ºF condenser water supply temperature 95ºF condenser water return temperature 3. C and D at each part load condition are obtained from the chiller manufacturer and should be derived from actual chiller tests. defined as the cooling output. is that this rating more closely approximates actual operating conditions imposed on the chiller.1 (Standard for Energy Efficient Design of New Nonresidential and High-Rise Residential Buildings) in response to a need for directly comparing Applied Part Load Value (APLV) The Applied Part Load Value.75 72. Chiller Load (%) Chilled Water Return Temp (ºF) 85 78. However. in Btu. 8 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . including: ♦ ♦ ♦ manufacturers’ part load data. 44ºF chilled water supply temperature 54ºF chilled water return temperature 2. This same metric is applied to electric chillers. it probably doesn’t represent actual operating conditions.5 66. APLV is calculated using the same IPLV formula. Standards and Ratings Currently there are no state or federal standards that regulate gas absorption cooling systems.39 + 0. According to the following equation: IPLV = 1 0. Chiller performance should be modeled to actual building load profiles tailored to site-specific ambient conditions.

Gas and electric differential auxiliary power requirements.CHAPTER 3: HISTORY AND STATUS D. Using average electric and gas costs is rarely adequate to capture the cost of operating cooling equipment. Special Rates . and their billing structures. Miscellaneous electric loads from pumps should be included in the calculation of annual savings. and.for gas cooling equipment or special load-management electric rates are sometimes available. seasonal and peak. HVAC equipment for office buildings generally are operated approximately 10 –12 hours per day. relative performance characteristics. favors gas engine-driven chillers because of their excellent part load performance. and relative maintenance costs. especially when the rate structure includes demand charges or declining blocks. Annual operating savings include an energy component and a comparison of O&M costs. The time-of-use rate is typically described in terms of on-peak and off-peak. $/ton hour. although not always. including: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Taxes . Performance Characteristics When comparing gas and electric cooling options there are several equipment performance characteristics that must be considered: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Energy Rates and Billing Structure Energy rates and billing structure have a major impact on economic evaluations of gas versus electric cooling equipment. operating characteristics. with different rates for various levels of energy consumption. but still significant load for the remainder of the day. Equipment in hospitals will operate near full load for much of the day and at reduced.the electric rate may include a demand ratchet. Typically. A high demand results in a smaller amount of kWh before the higher rate kicks in. Seasons . The descriptions of the building types used in the analysis. For example. relative costs of the electricity and gas. Economics/Cost Effectiveness The economics of gas-fueled cooling systems vs. which can be over 10% in many areas.applicable taxes and franchise fees. Utility rate structures may include one or more of the following: Block Rates . However. ¢/kWh Gas energy rate. Time-of Use Rates . The marginal electric price for cooling has a larger demand component relative to usage. Energy rates include: ♦ ♦ ♦ Electric chiller seasonal COP and peak load COP. Electric demand. Annual energy savings need to be large enough to overcome higher initial costs and potentially higher maintenance costs for gas-engine driven chillers to be cost-effective. and sometimes partial peak. The details of the actual electric rates must be considered in the total analysis of chiller system operating costs. Annual energy savings will be a function of the operating schedule. which allows for a variation on how the demand kW is defined. $/kW Electric energy. It may also be stated in kWh per kW of demand.the electric rate may vary depending on the time of day. $/MMBtu (or therms) It is essential that the complete utility rates and rate structures are used for an accurate economic analysis. Gas and electric differential O&M cost requirements. An operating schedule that has a significant number of hours where the equipment runs at part load. include the assumed operating schedules. provided in the appendix.some utilities have different summer and winter rates. The first three factors are discussed in the following sections and combined to produce estimates of Annual Energy Savings. A lower demand typically results in a large allowed amount of kWh at a lower rate. electric chillers are driven by the additional investment cost and several factors influencing operating cost. Ratchets . Gas cooling equipment seasonal COP. the unit price per kWh increases as demand increases. Operating Characteristics Operating schedules for building types vary. In this case the kWh rate is a function of demand. five days per week. operating schedules that require equipment to run at full load for relatively few hours and not at all for most hours will result in too little annual energy savings ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 9 .The electric block rates may be in terms of kWh. which drives up the unit price.

retail outlets and institutions including hospitals. Equipment Installations Gas absorption cooling equipment is available for commercial facilities including hotels. a 600-ton York HCFC123 electric centrifugal chiller and a BAC plate-andframe 300-ton heat exchanger for use as a water economizer were installed. Sizes Commercially proven absorption cooling systems. ft. and gas absorption air conditioners and heat pumps. senior plant engineer. C. nursing homes. Missouri direct-fired absorption chillers. Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) are defined as the total cooling load supplied over the cooling load duration (ton/hours) divided by the cooling equipment capacity (tons). The customary approach to analyzing chiller economics has been to employ “equivalent full load hour” methodology. E. where and how much cooling is required for the building. ranging in size from 3 to 1. F. Since the economics of gas cooling are highly dependent on operating hours. which predicts when.700 tons are widely available. a 1. 100 to 1. warehouse facility existing equipment consisted of three York steam absorbers and a York reciprocating chiller.400 tons Estimating Annual Energy Savings To estimate annual energy savings.500 ton York Absorption Chillers. 20 to 100 ton Carrier Absorption Chillers. such as DOE2. ft. the performance characteristics of each chiller alternative must be carefully compared. and schools. 10 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .700 ton Trane Absorption Chillers. 20 to 100 ton McQuay LiBr Double-Effect. 100 to 1. These systems come as stand-alone chillers or as chillers with integral heating systems. 100 to 1. 100 to 1. warehouses. 100 to 2. St. 3 to 25 ton Yazaki LiBr Double-Effect. Equipment Manufacturers There are several manufacturers of absorption chillers.1E contains performance simulation modules for: ♦ ♦ ♦ G.000 ton FERC Office Building. including: • • • • • Robur Single-Effect.000 per year exceeded our expectations. office buildings. Following are several examples of gas absorption chiller installations: AT&T Office Building. HAP. "The combined maintenance and energy savings of $237. D.000 sq.CHAPTER 3: HISTORY AND STATUS to realize an acceptable payback for most business’ requirements. natural gas absorption chillers. • • • McQuay Absorption Chillers. A comprehensive analysis should be done with an hourly simulation model. Part load operation is modified to obtain the equivalent of running at full load. accurate analysis requires a detailed building simulation. Washington. The following sections provide manufacturer specific information and examples of installations. The 421. The current publicly available version of DOE-2. supermarkets.000-ton Hitachi* ParaFlowTM direct-fired absorption chiller. it does simplify economic comparison.500 ton Dunham-Bush." says Vince Behan. Louis. While this method does not reflect the efficiency of part load operation. In the early 1990s. or TRACE. office building and 255.000 sq.

which opened in 1995.000 sq.000 sq." says Bob Diehl. One 400 ton McQuay direct-fired double-effect absorption chiller was installed during an expansion project in 1993 to provide cooling to 300.000 to $50. The use of the absorption chiller allowed the hospital to avoid the cost of upgrading its electric service.CHAPTER 3: HISTORY AND STATUS The operating savings were great enough to convince the school district to install gas cooling in a new 400.000 per year or about 3% to 5% of annual utility costs. "We would've had to buy additional electric equipment in order to satisfy an electric load increase and upgrade.000 ton direct fired absorption chiller was put into a hybrid plant with an electric chiller to cool the facility. Other features affecting the decision to install the system were low maintenance and reduced use of CFC refrigerants.000. The estimated savings are approximately $40. ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 11 . Texas In 1994 the new 186. By using the natural gas-powered chiller we are saving 35 percent per year in energy costs. has office space. Greene Hospital. acting vice president for Scripps Health. ft. ft. "Using a natural gas-powered chiller is how we reduce our electric load.000 sq. That translates into a yearly savings of $25." Walter and Lois Curtis Middle School. California The 868. San Diego. middle school was constructed. A 1. ft. Two 100 ton York direct-fired doubleeffect absorption chillers were installed. ft. a health club and a 200 seat restaurant. The system provides all of the school’s cooling and part of the heating. Allen. high school then under construction.681 sq. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) office building.

3 million square foot. $523 million dollar state-of-the-art facility chose to install two 1. which reduced space requirements by 40%.CHAPTER 3: HISTORY AND STATUS Philadelphia Convention Center Completed in 1993.000 ton direct fired absorption chiller heaters for all the building’s heating and cooling needs. They were also selected because of quiet operation. The units provide all the heating and cooling. 12 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . so no boilers were required.500 ton and two 1. this 1.

1R ECB guidelines with a 20 % oversizing margin. either screw or centrifugal. The range of equipment sizes represents the variation in cooling load for the cities analyzed. The results of separate fuel type analysis can then be combined to provide a complete picture of the savings opportunities. it was not possible to develop “typical” gas-to-electric cost results. Building descriptions and city specific utility rates are provided in the Appendix. as will be shown by example in the following chapter.941 3. Figure 13 shows the standard and high efficiencies assumed for the various types of chillers.111 90 .425 9.777 5.038 5.000 160.000 49.Building Type and Size As shown in Figure 10. the type of electric equipment.205 165 . These graphs can be used. The results of a detailed energy and rates analysis. ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 13 .474 Gas absorption chillers were compared to the following chiller options: ♦ ♦ ♦ Standard efficiency electric screw or centrifugal High efficiency electric screw or centrifugal Indirect-fired single effect absorption Atlanta San Diego Riverside Fort Worth Phoenix Miami The analysis is structured to provide “typical” values that can be used as a screening tool during schematic design of a building or as guidance on equipment efficiency issues for voluntary programs or energy code bodies. The cities and buildings are representative of the range of climates and building occupancies where gas cooling options would be used. Due to the complexities of the interactions between fuel type usage and utility rates.Cities used for Cooling Analysis Figure 9 shows the building types included in the analysis. Type Medium Office Large Office Hospital Hotel Out-Patient Clinic Secondary School Large Retail Size (Sq Ft) 49. was dependent on the size.557 8.883 2. used as a comparison.143 408 .223 5.573 384 .000 164. to determine relative increase in gas consumption and relative decrease in electric consumption. sorted by Cooling Degree Day (CDD) is provided in Figure 8. along with the building size in square feet.000 Cooling (tons)* 100 . and the cooling equipment size in tons.CHAPTER 4: DESIGN ANALYSIS A. Figure 8 . have been distilled down to a series of graphs. when comparing a gas chiller to an electric chiller.519 645 . for seven building types in ten cities.734 4.393 *Cooling plant capacity includes 20% additional oversizing Figure 9 . The results are graphed for various gas rates and various electric rates.891 90 . The economic analysis is of course dependent upon gas and electric rates. Overview City San Francisco Chicago Washington DC Los Angeles CDD50 2.295 6.000 315.000 272. Information on building type and size are provided in Figure 9.000 50. The list of cities. The sizing of the cooling plant follows ASHRAE 90.

in dollars per year. If the LCC savings are greater than the incremental cost. in dollars. In technical terms. results of any hybrid systems analysis cannot be generalized. A more detailed description of the scalar ratio is provided in the Appendix. a hybrid system under the same conditions. The marginal energy cost.1E building simulation models. in dollars. if the results indicate that a gas absorption chiller is cost-effective. versus the marginal cost of gas. scalar ratio. They were therefore intentionally not included in this analysis.600 >600 Type Screw Screw Centrifugal The LCC savings describe the present worth of the energy cost savings over the life of the investment. including: ♦ additional cooling tower capacity adds$20$25/ton ♦ additional boiler capacity adds $50-$150/ton Another element of the first cost for gas absorption chillers is the potential savings from interactions with other building elements. period of analysis. The modeling included a complete comparison of system components. divided by energy savings in therms or kWh. This approach has the virtue that different life cycle costing criteria. These savings could be significant.Cooling Equipment Type Based on Size Because of the complexities and “individual” nature of hybrid systems.CHAPTER 4: DESIGN ANALYSIS Size (tons) 100 . will typically be costeffective. The marginal cost accounts for varying rates that may apply based on total usage. For example. Specific equipment cost information is provided in the Appendix. then the SIR will be greater than one and the measure is assumed to be cost effective. utility rate. fans and pumps. but are not included due to the variability between installations. including auxiliary equipment such as cooling towers. Energy Savings Energy savings were calculated using detailed DOE2. The graphs present the annual energy cost savings. Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness is based on the calculation of the Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR). or even marginally not cost-effective. and different scalars may be applied to the results. 14 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . is calculated as energy cost savings. However. in dollars per ton capacity. The graphs in the following chapter present the energy savings for each of the cities for a range of marginal gas and electrical prices. The models provide comprehensive data on energy use and savings. in dollars per therm. A scalar ratio is a mathematical simplification of life cycle costing (LCC) analysis. Typical values of the scalar are in the 8 to 16 range. gas or electric. building type.300 >300 . as shown in the following equation: SIR = LCC Savings Incremental Cost The SIR uses an investment model over the life of the equipment rather than the simplistic and short range perspective of simple payback. climate. installing a gas absorption chiller may reduce the building’s electric load enough to allow for downsizing of the electric service drop and load center. divided by the incremental measure cost per unit capacity. equipment. the scalar ratio represents the series present worth multiplier. C. The scalar ratio is a single term that combines discount rate. SIR is defined as the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) savings. or the marginal cost of electricity in dollars per kWh. The first year savings are multiplied by the scalar to arrive at the life cycle savings. and B. Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR’s) indicate the cost effectiveness of the equipment selection depending upon several factors including: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Figure 10 . Additional first costs for absorption systems were applied to the cost-effectiveness model. Different scalars have been used to evaluate the costeffectiveness based on different economic assumptions. fuel escalation and other factors.

01 0.8 4. 2000” Figure 11 .68 COP 4.00 High Efficiency kW/ton 0.60 1.2 kW/ton 0.93 0.72 0.58 5. <150 tons Electric Screw.84 0.51 Reference: ASHRAE 90.CHAPTER 4: DESIGN ANALYSIS Standard Efficiency Equipment Type & Size COP Electric Screw. >300 Single Effect Absorption Double Effect Absorption 3.1R “Minimum Efficiency” and “Efficiency as of Jan.2 5.86 3.45 4.90 6.79 0.Cooling Equipment Efficiencies ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 15 . =>150 to 300 Electric Centrifugal.

.

the results can be extrapolated to different utility rates. The comparison is between a gas absorption chiller and a standard efficiency electric screw chiller. Conversely. The vertical y-axis shows the annual energy cost savings. By following the line on the graph. and a marginal electric cost of approximately $0. in dollars per kWh.11 kWh. as shown in Figure 20. the energy cost savings would decrease to approximately $5. The following pages contain families of graphs that describe the performance of gas absorption chillers in a variety of cities and building types. One is for a range of marginal gas costs and a fixed marginal electric cost.1E runs done for representative prototype buildings using the actual utility rate structures currently published for each of the cities.500 per year. Each of the lines on the graphs represents the energy savings potential of the prototype building in one of the ten cities studied. In the Chicago example. The bottom graph is for the same conditions showing the energy cost savings vs. or the marginal cost of electricity. The gas costs in these other locations may be different than Chicago. the Chicago line would also be reasonably representative of Milwaukee or Detroit or Omaha. as gas prices increase. savings from the absorption chiller increase.00 point on the vertical axis is a good investment. in dollars per therm.900/year compared to a high efficiency screw chiller.37 per therm. For example.20. The other is for a range of marginal electric costs based on a fixed marginal gas cost. a 20% increase. marginal cost represents the costs charged per therm for the increase in gas consumption. under the local utility rate structure. marginal gas cost graphs. As described in Chapter 4. Conversely. The cases shown on this graph can also be used to estimate savings for other cities with comparable climates. as shown in the bottom graph. in dollars per year. It is the ratio of the life cycle cost (LCC) savings to the incremental first cost. The horizontal x-axis of these graphs is the marginal cost of gas. as shown in the following equation: SIR = LCC Savings Incremental Cost If the LCC savings are greater than the incremental cost. if gas were to increase to $0. marginal electric costs. The SIR is used as the figure of merit for cost effectiveness. the savings would increase to $26. for the kilo-Watt/hours that are saved by the use of the gas absorption chiller. Thus. Annual Energy Cost Savings Graphs Two sets of energy cost savings are calculated for each building type. but by entering the graph at the x-axis value that represents the costs in the other location. Markers on each line indicate current local gas and electric rates for each city. any point on the graph that is above the 1. These particular results are for the medium office building prototype. Cost Effectiveness Graphs This section presents the cost effectiveness graphs developed for various utility rates and locations.45 per therm. For example. an estimate of the savings can be obtained. the prototype large office building in Chicago has a marginal gas cost of approximately $0. Calculating the LCC savings can seem complicated to anybody unfamiliar with present worth analysis ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 17 . The marginal cost does not include the utility basic service charges or other charges that are common to both equipment scenarios.500 per year.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS A. if the electric rate increased to $0. The slope of the line represents the rate of change in annual energy cost savings for each increment or decrement in the marginal cost of energy. Using the Graphs As shown on the top graph. In this example. the energy savings associated with an absorption chiller decrease. between the base equipment and the gas absorption chiller. as described in Chapter 4. The top graph in Figure 12 is typical of the annual energy cost savings vs. The graphs can save the reader a great deal of analysis work. and can provide good information about when and where gas absorption chillers can be cost effective. Marginal electric costs are the costs charged. The gas absorption chiller would save approximately $8. For the case of gas rates. as electric prices increase. then the SIR will be greater than one and the investment is a sound one. these graphs were developed from DOE-2. Chicago is represented by a solid diamond marker.

one can also apply these graphs to other cities by selecting one of the ten cities whose climate conditions are most similar and moving to the point on that line. and San Diego. Washington D. Figure 35 is an example of “SIR as a function of marginal electric costs” graphs. The top graph in Figure 34 is for a scalar of 8. which makes the gas option cost effective. The costeffectiveness results can be obtained from either the gas or the electric based graphs. which corresponds to the gas or electric costs in the other city. in Figure 36. then the SIR value from the graph would be adjusted to reflect the new cost. If the marker for the city is above the 1. while a scalar of 16 also makes it cost effective in San Francisco. and the rate of economic inflation.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS principles. For each comparison there are different energy and equipment costs. is based on an incremental cost of $380/ton. Each graph enables one to quickly determine the cities where gas absorption chiller is currently cost effective. while others are missing curves (or markers) for one or more cities. instead. The graphs in Figure 34 are typical of the “savings-toinvestment ratio (SIR) as a function of marginal gas costs” graphs for scalars of 8. In any case where the marker for a city does not appear on the line. and electric rates low enough. then one can see how much of a decrease in marginal gas cost. in a city whose climate was similar to Phoenix (marked with an X in Figure 51).84. the SIR would be greater than 1. shown in the graph in Figure 35. Miami. Phoenix. The SIR is a negative number. the adjustment factor would be 380/300. Gas rates are high enough.35 per therm.00.00 line. These factors have been combined into a single numeric parameter called the scalar ratio. Los Angeles. For example. as shown in the following equation: SIR Actual = SIR graph × Cost graph Cost Actual Further review of the Cost-Effectiveness.27. The abbreviation DFDE in the graphs stands for a direct. if one were comparing a gas absorption chiller to a high efficiency electric chiller for a large office for a scalar of 12. Atlanta.00 from the graph would be multiplied by 380/450 to arrive at an adjusted SIR of 0. with similar electric rates. the graph for SIR comparing gas engine driven chillers to standard efficiency chillers with a scalar of 16. shows curves for six cities. savings curves on them. Riverside. the rate of increase in energy costs. or an increase in marginal electricity cost. If the incremental cost for a particular installation was instead $450/ton. that there are no energy savings for this technology for most building types. or almost no. the adjustment factor will always have a numerator of 380 and a denominator of the new incremental equipment cost.” as described in Chapter 4. therefore this technology can assumed to be cost effective at marginal gas rates above $0. the incremental cost was $300/ton. For this particular comparison. including the lifetime of the investment. the energy savings are so great that the curves are literally off the scale. In this case.80/therm in all locations. As with the previous graphs. This value is the denominator of the SIR values plotted on this graph. 18 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . The following pages contain the full set of graphs comparing gas absorption chillers to other cooling options. in dollars per ton capacity. Using a scalar of 12. For example. These graphs can be adjusted for different incremental equipment costs. particular scalar and incremental equipment values are used. If the marker is not quite over the 1. None of them have markers on the curve.. gas cooling becomes cost-effective in Fort Worth. or “scalar. and the marker for Miami is below the x-axis of the graph. Some of the graphs have no.00 SIR line. An exception to this is the result for Miami. would be needed to bring it over the line.fired double-effect absorption chiller. which is cost effective. shows that for a medium office. There are different sets of graphs for each of the different building types studied. the SIR for a scalar of 8 for Chicago. and the incremental equipment cost is $380/ton of chiller capacity. and different economic criteria. If. or SIR graphs. For example. It involves several variables. the SIR value can be found on the table which precedes the graphs in the following sections. it’s cost effective. an SIR value of 1. but with a marginal gas cost of $0. In these cases.C. and San Francisco. for an adjusted SIR of 1. The gas option is not cost-effective in Fort Worth. 12 and 16. (see Figure 35) an absorption chiller compared to a standard efficiency electric chiller is cost-effective based on a scalar of 8 for Chicago. For each of the SIR graphs.

Energy Savings Graphs Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption Chiller vs.000 $14.65 0. Chiller .000 $25.05 Atlanta Ft. Std.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $10.000 $4. Elec.000 $0 0.000 $35.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $30.000 $2.Medium Office $16. Elec.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS B.000 Chicago Atlanta Ft. Eff.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco $12.000 $5.000 $10.20 0.000 $6.000 $15.000 $0 0. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco 0. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Medium Office ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 19 . Worth Miami Wash DC $8.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.25 0.30 0. Eff. Chiller .30 0.40 0.25 0.Medium Office $45.35 0. Std.000 $40.15 0.60 0. Standard Efficiency Electric Chiller Energy Cost Savings for various Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.10 0.45 0.70 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 12 .000 $20.50 0.55 0.

Elec.000 $160.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.25 0.000 Chicago Atlanta $50.40 0.65 0.000 San Diego San Francisco $10.000 $180.30 0.05 Chicago Atlanta Ft.60 0.10 0.55 0.000 $60.000 $100. Chiller . Elec.35 0.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $140.50 0.000 $20.25 0.20 0. Eff.000 $60. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 13 . Std.Large Office $200. Std.70 0.000 Ft.000 $40.45 0.000 $120.000 $0 0. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Large Office 20 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .15 0.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Worth Miami $40.000 $80.Large Office $80.000 $70. Eff.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $0 0.30 0.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix $20.000 $30. Chiller .

000 Ft. Chiller .20 0.75 $600. Std.10 0.000 Atlanta Ft.000 Phoenix San Diego San Francisco $20.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside $200. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Hospital ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 21 .25 0.30 0.000 Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.25 0.05 0.45 0.000 $100.70 0. Worth Miami $300.000 Phoenix San Diego $100.30 0.65 0.15 0.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Std.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 14 .60 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) 0. Worth Miami $60. Eff.40 0.35 0.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) Atlanta $80.Hospital $500.Hospital $120.50 0. Chiller . Elec.000 San Francisco $0 0.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $400.55 0. Elec.000 $0 0. Eff.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside $40.

000 $60.50 0.25 0. Chiller . Std.45 0.000 Miami Wash DC $30.000 Atlanta Ft.Hotel $70.000 $0 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 15 .Hotel $400.25 0.000 San Diego San Francisco $10.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $50. Worth Miami $200.40 0.70 0.65 0.000 Wash DC LA City $150. Elec.60 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.000 Ft.000 Chicago Atlanta $250. Elec.000 $350.35 0. Eff. Eff.10 0.000 $300.000 Riverside Phoenix $100.000 San Diego San Francisco $50.15 0. Chiller .000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $0 0.05 0.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix $20.30 0.20 0.55 0.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Std. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Hotel 22 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . Worth $40.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.30 0.

000 San Francisco $0 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 16 .20 0.60 0.Clinic $20. Elec. Eff.55 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS $25.000 $60.65 0. Elec.35 0.30 0. Std. Worth $40.000 Ft.000 San Diego San Francisco $10.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Chiller .000 $0 0. Chiller .000 Atlanta Ft.Clinic $70.50 0.30 0.25 0.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix $20.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $50.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego $5.000 Miami Wash DC $30.45 0. Std.000 Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Clinic ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 23 . Worth Miami Wash DC $10.25 0.05 0.10 0.40 0.70 0.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) Atlanta $15.15 0. Eff.

50 0. Std.000 San Diego San Francisco $5.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.000 Chicago Atlanta $25.30 0.000 $30.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) $40.000 Atlanta Ft. Worth Miami $6. Eff. Eff.School $35. Chiller .55 0.25 0.40 0. Elec. Worth Miami $20.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $8.000 Phoenix San Diego $2.15 0.65 0.School $12.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.05 0. Chiller . Standard Efficiency Chiller for School 24 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .10 0.30 0.25 0.000 San Francisco $0 0.45 0.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside $4.20 0. Elec.70 0.000 Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.000 $10.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $0 0.35 0.000 $15. Std.60 0.000 Ft.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix $10.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 17 .

Std. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco 0.15 0.000 $40.05 0.000 San Diego San Francisco $20.30 0.50 0. Elec.55 0.000 $140.75 Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs. Standard Efficiency Chiller for Large Retail ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 25 .Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.20 0.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $0 0.000 $20.35 0. Worth Miami $80.000 $0 0.45 0.000 Ft.Large Retail $160.000 Riverside Phoenix $40.000 $10.30 0.10 0.25 Chicago Atlanta Ft.65 0.000 Wash DC LA City $60. Std.000 $120.Large Retail $45. Chiller .35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 18 .70 0. Chiller .25 0. Eff.000 Chicago Atlanta $100.000 $35.60 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) 0.000 $15. Elec.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.000 $25. Eff.40 0.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $30.000 $5.

.

000 San Diego San Francisco $0 0.Medium Office $40.000 $12.000 San Diego San Francisco $2.30 0.25 0.70 0.000 $0 0.05 0.25 0.55 0.10 0. Elec.000 Miami Wash DC $6.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix $4.45 0. High Efficiency Chiller for Medium Office ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 27 .35 0.15 0.60 0.Medium Office $14. High Efficiency Electric Chiller Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs. Elec.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $10. Chiller .000 Atlanta Ft. Worth $8.65 0.50 0.20 0.000 $30. High Eff.40 0. Chiller . Worth Miami $20. High Eff.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 19 .Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption Chiller vs.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) Chicago Atlanta Ft.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix $10.30 0.

High Efficiency Chiller for Large Office 28 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .35 0. High Eff. Elec.Large Office $70.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix $40.25 0. Worth $40.05 0.70 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.65 0.10 0. Chiller .Large Office $160.25 0.000 San Diego San Francisco $0 0.000 Atlanta Ft.50 0.000 San Diego San Francisco $10.30 0.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.55 0.60 0.000 $120. High Eff.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix $20.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) Chicago Atlanta Ft.45 0.000 $60.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.15 0.40 0. Elec.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 20 . Chiller .30 0.20 0.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $50.000 $0 0. Worth Miami $80.000 Miami Wash DC $30.

Chiller .60 0. Elec.000 San Francisco $0 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 21 .000 Ft.30 0.000 Miami Wash DC LA City $200.Hospital $70.15 0.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) Atlanta Ft.25 0.20 0.000 Riverside Phoenix San Diego $100. High Eff.000 Chicago Atlanta $50.000 Wash DC LA City $30.000 San Diego San Francisco $60.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS $80.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $0 0. Elec.000 $10. High Efficiency Chiller for Hospital ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 29 .40 0.70 0.30 0. High Eff.05 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs. Worth Miami $40.35 0.000 $400.000 Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.55 0. Worth $300.50 0.45 0.Hospital $500.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.65 0.25 0. Chiller .000 Riverside Phoenix $20.10 0.

000 San Francisco $0 0.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside $100.Hotel $50.30 0. High Efficiency Chiller for Hotel 30 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .000 $250.05 0.000 Miami Wash DC LA City $20.000 Riverside Phoenix San Diego $10.30 0.50 0. High Eff.65 0.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) Atlanta Ft. High Eff.Hotel $300.000 $40.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $200.40 0.000 Phoenix San Diego $50.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 22 . Elec.000 Atlanta Ft. Elec.60 0.10 0.25 0.45 0.20 0.15 0. Chiller .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs. Chiller .25 0.55 0.000 San Francisco $0 0.35 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs. Worth Miami $150.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.70 0. Worth $30.

Clinic $60. Chiller .000 $4.10 0.25 0.65 0.50 0.30 0.000 $16.20 0. Worth Miami Wash DC $30.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. Elec.000 San Diego San Francisco $10.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.000 $0 0.30 0. Chiller .000 $50.Clinic $18.60 0. Elec.000 $10.55 0. High Efficiency Chiller for Clinic ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 31 . High Eff.000 Ft.35 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.70 0.000 $14. High Eff.000 $8.000 $2.40 0.000 $0 0.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix $20.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $12.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 23 .000 $6.25 Chicago Atlanta Ft. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco 0.05 0.000 Chicago Atlanta Energy Cost Savings ($) $40.15 0.45 0.

Chiller .30 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs.40 0.05 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 24 . Chiller .000 $8. Worth Miami $15.25 0.000 San Francisco $0 0.10 0.25 0. Elec.55 0.000 Wash DC LA City Riverside $10.20 0.000 Riverside Phoenix San Diego $2.50 0. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City $4.000 $25. High Eff.School $30.Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs.65 0.45 0.000 Phoenix San Diego $5.35 0.000 Ft.000 San Francisco $0 0.15 0. Elec.School $10.70 0.60 0.30 0.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $20. High Eff. High Efficiency Chiller for School 32 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs.000 Atlanta Ft.000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) Atlanta $6.

CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS

Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Electric Costs DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Retail
$50,000

$40,000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) Atlanta $30,000 Ft. Worth Miami Wash DC $20,000 LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego $10,000 San Francisco

$0 0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )

Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs DFDE vs. High Eff. Elec. Chiller - Large Retail
$140,000

$120,000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $100,000 Atlanta Ft. Worth $80,000 Miami Wash DC $60,000 LA City Riverside Phoenix $40,000 San Diego San Francisco $20,000

$0 0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh)

Figure 25 - Energy Cost Savings for Absorption Chiller vs. High Efficiency Chiller for Large Retail

ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE

33

CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS

Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller

Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs Double vs. Single Effect Abs. Chiller - Medium Office
$28,000 $26,000 $24,000 $22,000 $20,000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0.20 Chicago Atlanta Ft. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )

Figure 26 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Medium Office
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller - Large Retail
$110,000 $100,000 $90,000 Chicago $80,000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 0.20 Atlanta Ft. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )

Figure 27 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Large Office

34

SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES

CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS

Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs Double vs. Single Effect Abs. Chiller - Hospital
$350,000

$300,000 Chicago Energy Cost Savings ($) $250,000 Atlanta Ft. Worth $200,000 Miami Wash DC LA City $150,000 Riverside Phoenix $100,000 San Diego San Francisco $50,000

$0 0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )

Figure 28 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Hospital
Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs Double vs. Single Effect Abs. Chiller - Hotel
$320,000

$280,000 $240,000 Energy Cost Savings ($) Chicago Atlanta $200,000 $160,000 Ft. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City $120,000 $80,000 Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco $40,000 $0 0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm )

Figure 29 - Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Hotel

ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE

35

30 0.000 Ft.000 $18.70 0. Single Effect Abs.000 $20.20 0.000 $0 0.000 $5.Clinic $40.60 0.000 $0 0.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $14.000 $10.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 31 .000 $10.School $22.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs Double vs.30 0.000 $4.000 $35. Chiller .70 0.000 Chicago Atlanta Energy Cost Savings ($) $25.Energy Cost Savings Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for School 36 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . Chiller .60 0.000 Chicago $16. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco 0.000 $2.50 0.40 0.80 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 30 .000 $15.000 $12. Single Effect Abs.000 $8.Energy Cost Savings Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Clinic Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs Doulbe vs.40 0.50 0.20 Atlanta Ft.80 0. Worth Miami Wash DC $20.000 LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco $30.000 $6.

000 $20.Large Retail $110.000 $60.000 Chicago $80.000 $100.000 $40.000 $30.50 0.000 Energy Cost Savings ($) $70.000 $10. Worth Miami Wash DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco 0.000 $0 0.60 0.30 0.Energy Cost Savings for Double vs Single Effect Absorption Chiller for Large Retail ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 37 .000 $50.40 0.70 0.000 $90.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 32 . Single Effect Absorption Chiller .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Energy Cost Savings for various Marginal Gas Costs Double vs.80 0.20 Atlanta Ft.

Utility Rate Gas Rate Elec.56 0.15 0.34 11.14 -3.00 1.64 11.54 2.52 6.15 1.79 10.81 6.47 0.55 0.91 3.57 8.75 1.69 16.43 0.18 0.45 0.49 8.35 0.17 1.13 0. Cost Effectiveness Graphs Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption vs.29 0.38 0.08 1.12 15.49 0.77 1.56 9. Standard Efficiency Electric Chiller Bldg.10 1.42 0.82 5.80 0.84 6.35 -2.32 1.50 1.63 0.31 -8.53 -10.11 0.74 -10.16 0.95 -7.63 0.80 3.09 0.92 1.36 12.43 0.48 -3.15 0.56 7.54 2.35 1.15 8 1.09 3.00 2.20 18.67 10.08 0.34 2.08 1.11 0.87 -5.36 0.15 0.07 5.58 21.72 3.40 8.72 0.36 5.71 -5.13 0.60 24.73 8.44 0.16 0.23 12.39 0.47 0.19 0.16 3.78 10.90 13.47 0.11 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS C.86 0.34 0.14 0.37 0. Electric Chillers 38 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .80 12.56 4.14 0.57 1.35 0.45 6.14 16.34 0.19 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.42 0.SIR for DFDE vs.48 2.12 19.80 0.97 16. Std.12 8.73 Scalar 12 1.55 1.08 0. Eff.47 Figure 33 .34 14.13 0.60 0.30 -16.12 0.46 0.13 0.57 -1.14 0.09 0.06 -21.11 0.45 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.20 2.31 0.65 3.17 2.34 0.62 2.08 0.62 2.11 0.16 0.80 0.09 0.Rate 0.55 0.04 13.14 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Large Office Hospital Marg.10 16 2.79 17.14 0.36 1.36 1.08 0.09 12. Type Medium Office Location Chicago Atlanta Ft.14 2.32 2.

15 3.52 3.20 -1.01 1.80 -5.12 1.87 0.73 4.49 1.30 6.94 10.23 2.36 0.36 1.87 0.05 7.29 0.98 1.42 0.47 0.31 2.10 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Bldg.20 7.37 0.08 1.59 0.74 1.75 0.50 1.08 0.60 0.95 6.08 0.11 1.20 0.82 3.94 0.26 0.76 -7.37 0.39 0.89 0.27 0.34 0. Type Hotel Location Chicago Atlanta Ft.88 4.50 -0.69 0.06 0.11 0.26 16 8.52 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.15 0.70 3.04 0.42 0.79 -2.14 0.59 13.29 5.05 0.96 -2.33 -0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.55 0.53 2. Utility Rate Gas Rate Elec.64 6.45 -29.73 1. Electric Chillers ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 39 .45 1.55 0.42 0.20 -7.94 -3.07 0.78 1.26 0.12 0.26 0.14 0.60 -10.36 0.09 0.11 0.55 0.53 3.13 0.73 -14.47 0.41 3.09 2.66 -0.10 0.15 0.73 0.10 0.88 -3.77 0.56 1.78 2.16 0.13 0.30 0.80 0.52 2.72 3.10 0.65 1.48 0.85 1.08 1. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.30 4.80 0.92 2.62 1.69 2.37 0.38 0.08 0.08 0.01 Medical Clinic School Large Retail Figure 33 (continued) – SIR for DFDE vs.07 0.26 1.15 0.Rate 0.69 3.99 2.79 6.08 0.54 0.96 10.58 1.39 2.36 0.41 0.59 4.75 1.31 1.71 3.22 0.60 1.44 0.51 0.48 0.47 0.65 0.41 0.74 0.07 0.48 5.41 0.38 0.30 0.53 0.36 1.61 2.40 3.61 0.11 0.38 0.43 3.34 0.18 0.12 0.54 0.35 1.39 0.09 0.94 10.52 2.59 0.50 Scalar 12 6.57 4.82 -5.39 -3.38 0.72 8.10 0.55 0.19 0.04 2.11 8 4.38 0.46 0.07 0.47 0.30 1.48 1. Std.92 -4.61 8.28 2.10 0.94 2.50 0.35 1.12 0.47 5.12 0.59 -22. Eff.38 0.46 2. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Marg.80 0.80 0.

65 0.35 0. Chiller .45 0. High Eff. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.30 0.50 0. DFDE vs. Costs. High Eff.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .65 0.65 0. DFDE vs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.W or t h 2. Elec.40 0. Scalar = 12.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office. Scalar = 8. Costs.W or t h 2.30 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 34 .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.55 0. DFDE vs. Scalar = 16. Elec.35 0. DFDE vs.55 0. Chiller .25 0.45 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.30 0. Chiller .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).70 0.0 0.40 0.70 0. Elec.W or t h 2. Chiller 40 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . High Eff.35 0.40 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.60 0.0 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).50 0.25 0.60 0.55 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .Medium Office 3.Medium Office 3.70 0. Eff.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0. Costs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0. Std.Medium Office 3.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).

Scalar = 16. Std.30 0.0 0. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 41 . for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0. Chiller .20 0. Eff.W or t h 2.W or t h 2.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. DFDE vs. DFDE vs. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.15 0. Elec. Std.0 0. Chiller . Elec. Scalar = 12.05 0.Medium Office 3. Chiller .15 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Eff.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). DFDE vs.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 35 .0 Ft . Eff.20 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.05 0.30 0.SIR for various marginal electric costs for Medium Office.10 0.10 0.10 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Eff.Medium Office 3.25 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. Scalar = 8. Elec. Std.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0.30 0.Medium Office 3.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Std. DFDE vs.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).05 0.

W or t h 2. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.55 0. Costs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.40 0.50 0. Chiller 42 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0.0 0.Large Office 3.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Chiller .70 0. Scalar = 12.50 0. Eff . Scalar = 8.30 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office.25 0.45 0. Eff .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Large Office 3.35 0.Elec.W or t h 2. Std.35 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.Elec.60 0.70 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).30 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .Elec.45 0.0 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 0. DFDE vs.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Costs.30 0. DFDE vs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .65 0. Std.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.50 0. Std. Chiller . for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Chiller . Scalar = 16.Large Office 3. Std.65 0.40 0. DFDE vs.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 36 . Costs.60 0.70 0. Eff .35 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs.W or t h 2.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.65 0.55 0.25 0. Eff.45 0.40 0.55 0.60 0.

0 Ft .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Std. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.Large Office C hi cago At l ant a 2. Eff.30 0. Std. DFDE vs.20 0. Eff.Large Office 3.05 0.05 0.30 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) 0. Std.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.10 0. Elec.15 0. DFDE vs.10 0. DFDE vs. Eff. Elec.05 0.25 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 37 . Scalar = 16.20 0. Std. Chiller .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. Elec.30 0. Scalar = 8.0 Ft . for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 43 . for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Eff.Large Office 3. Scalar = 12. Chiller .10 0. DFDE vs.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Chiller .0 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) 3.SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Office.0 SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).20 0.15 0.35 Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).W or t h 2.0 0.

Eff .60 0. Eff .50 0.Hospital 3.40 0.70 0. Std. Costs. Scalar = 8.Elec.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Eff .40 0. Costs.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.45 0.55 0.Elec. Costs. Chiller 44 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . Eff.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.25 0.Hospital 3.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.65 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Hospital 3.65 0.45 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).45 0. Std. Scalar = 12.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h 2.0 0.70 0.35 0.30 0. DFDE vs.35 0. DFDE vs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 38 .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.30 0.35 0.25 0. Scalar = 16.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital. DFDE vs.55 0.30 0. Std. DFDE vs.55 0.60 0. Chiller . Std.50 0.50 0.40 0. Chiller .60 0.0 Ft .0 0.Elec. Chiller .25 0.0 0.0 Ft .65 0.70 0.

W or t h 2. Std.0 Ft .0 0.0 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).Hospital 3.20 0.25 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.15 0.0 0.35 Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Eff.05 0. Eff. Std. Scalar = 8.30 0. DFDE vs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Scalar = 16.Hospital 3. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. Std.W or t h 2. Elec.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).30 0.30 0. Eff. Elec.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Hospital 3. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 45 .20 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.15 0. Chiller .10 0. Scalar = 12. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hospital. Chiller .05 0.15 0. DFDE vs.20 0.05 0. Chiller . Elec.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Eff.25 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 39 .10 0. Std.10 0.25 0. DFDE vs.

Hotel 3.50 0. Std.25 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.55 0.25 0.65 0. Chiller 46 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.55 0.30 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.70 0.45 0.60 0.Elec.Hotel 3.W or t h 2.35 0. Std.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.25 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Chiller . DFDE vs.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).50 0.30 0.0 0. Std.60 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 40 . Costs.40 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .Elec. Eff .45 0. Eff .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.60 0. DFDE vs.Hotel 3. Scalar = 12. DFDE vs. Std.65 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Chiller . for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Eff . Costs.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Scalar = 8. Chiller .30 0.0 0.50 0.65 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).40 0.0 Ft .Elec.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.70 0.35 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .55 0. DFDE vs. Costs.70 0.35 0.W or t h 2.0 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Scalar = 16.40 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel. Eff.45 0.

SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hotel. Std.0 0. Std.15 0. Elec.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Hotel 3.0 Ft .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Std. Eff.0 0.20 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).Hotel 3. Eff. Std.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.30 0. Elec. Chiller .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0. Scalar = 12.20 0.05 0.25 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.30 0.W or t h 2.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). DFDE vs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .10 0.W or t h 2.10 0.10 0.05 0. DFDE vs. Chiller .35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. DFDE vs. Scalar = 16.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 41 . Chiller .0 0. Eff. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 47 . Elec. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.25 0.20 0.15 0.30 0. Eff. DFDE vs.Hotel 3. Scalar = 8.05 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.15 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.

Clinic 3. Eff. DFDE vs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .35 0. DFDE vs. Eff .40 0. DFDE vs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .45 0.0 Ft .70 0.30 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.25 0. Chiller . Eff .SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic.60 0.Elec. Std.30 0.60 0.55 0. Costs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 0.Clinic 3.65 0.Clinic 3. Scalar = 12. Chiller .70 0.40 0.30 0. DFDE vs.40 0.Elec.50 0. Chiller 48 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .65 0.55 0.45 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Chiller . Scalar = 16.55 0.45 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Std.35 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Std.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de 1.W or t h 2.50 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 0.35 0. Costs.65 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Eff .25 0.25 0.0 P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Scalar = 8. Std.W or t h 2.Elec.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 42 .75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).50 0. Costs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.70 0.0 0.60 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.

DFDE vs.05 0. Chiller .15 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs. Scalar = 8.20 0.30 0. Std. Eff.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.Clinic 3.30 0. Eff. Elec. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 49 .20 0.30 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .25 0.05 0. Chiller . for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).SIR for various marginal electric costs for Clinic.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Std.0 0. Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.Clinic 3.Clinic 3.25 0.15 0.20 0. Eff. Std. DFDE vs.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 43 . Chiller . Scalar = 16.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs. Std.15 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.10 0.10 0.W or t h 2. Scalar = 12.05 0.10 0. Eff.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h 2.25 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 Ft .0 0.

45 0.W or t h 2.70 0.35 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs. Eff.70 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. Costs.0 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Eff .30 0.65 0. Scalar = 16.School 3.Elec.Elec.35 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Scalar = 8.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 44 .40 0.60 0.70 0.50 0.40 0. Std.25 0.School 3.30 0. Chiller .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.45 0.0 Ft . Chiller . DFDE vs.60 0.0 0. Costs.65 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0. Std.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Elec. Eff .50 0.50 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 Ft .60 0. Std.30 0.55 0. Chiller. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.40 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.35 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for School. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.55 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .65 0.25 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. DFDE vs.School 3. Costs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.45 0. Std. Eff . DFDE vs. Scalar = 12.25 0. Chiller 50 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .55 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).

35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). DFDE vs.05 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.25 0.15 0. Elec.0 0.School 3.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Scalar = 16.School 3. DFDE vs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h 2.0 Ft .20 0. Elec.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Elec.SIR for various marginal electric costs for School.0 0.10 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .10 0.30 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Chiller .W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Eff. DFDE vs. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. Chiller . Std. Scalar = 12. Eff. Eff.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.30 0.15 0. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 51 .0 0. Std.15 0.School 3. Scalar = 8. Std. Chiller . Eff.30 0.20 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.25 0.20 0.05 0.10 0. Std.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 45 .05 0. DFDE vs.W or t h 2.

60 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).25 0.35 0. Costs.55 0.Large Retail 3.Large Retail 3. Std.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Eff.65 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Chiller .75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).70 0.0 0.Elec.70 0.50 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.Elec.45 0. Costs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. DFDE vs.55 0. Eff .SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail.Elec.0 0. Chiller .50 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Large Retail 3. DFDE vs.70 0.40 0.25 0. DFDE vs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.55 0. DFDE vs.30 0.35 0. Scalar = 16.40 0.0 Ft .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .45 0.45 0. Costs. Scalar = 8.35 0. Scalar = 12. Chiller 52 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .65 0. Eff .W or t h 2.30 0.W or t h 2.0 0. Std. Eff .75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 46 . Std.30 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.50 0. Std. Chiller .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .65 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.25 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.40 0.60 0.60 0.

Std.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 47 . DFDE vs.10 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. Std.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 0. Chiller .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.30 0.W or t h 2. Elec.15 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .20 0.10 0. DFDE vs.05 0. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 53 . Eff. Eff.30 0. Eff. Std.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Chiller .SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Retail.W or t h 2.25 0. Scalar = 16.25 0.15 0. Scalar = 12.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs.05 0.20 0.0 0.20 0.25 0. Elec.W or t h 2.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.15 0.0 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.30 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.05 0. Chiller . Scalar = 8.Large Retail 3.10 0.Large Retail 3. Elec. Std. Eff. DFDE vs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .Large Retail 3.

74 8.19 9.55 4.73 10.00 5.02 0.33 7.77 1.35 Scalar 12 1.86 1.88 0.11 0.01 5.09 0.55 0.74 -14.42 0.70 Large Office Hospital Figure 48 .88 0.15 1.58 2.19 7.07 0.14 0.31 1.80 0.13 8 0.31 0.53 0.06 0.06 0.39 -3.34 0.85 -0.11 0.09 0. High Eff.15 0. Utility Rate Gas Rate Elec.40 5.93 3.65 7.14 0.60 0.44 0.10 0.10 4.70 2.11 0.98 0.14 -0.Rate 0. High Efficiency Electric Chiller Bldg. Type Medium Office Location Chicago Atlanta Ft.13 0.70 2.19 1. Electric Chillers 54 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .41 1.29 -2.47 0.49 0.47 0.13 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Direct Fired Double Effect (DFDE) Absorption Chiller vs.52 8.32 0.63 0.44 -4.13 0.65 0.64 5.66 14.79 1.19 0.15 0.61 -21. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.31 0.43 0.48 17.46 1.08 0.47 0.54 -11.16 -11.SIR for DFDE vs.45 0.42 0.20 0.99 0.15 0.55 0.04 10.18 1.45 0.28 1.63 0.56 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Marg.14 0.52 5.09 0.41 -8.04 1.08 0.27 -5.97 1.14 0.93 -2.87 5.79 1.36 0.80 0.39 0.03 11.12 0.34 0.50 10.71 1.35 0.68 1.24 0.86 0.20 0.79 1.80 7.48 1.11 -7.59 2.07 0.16 0.48 -28.09 0.86 -4.11 0.36 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.80 0.09 3.38 0.76 0.21 -15.61 13.34 0.69 4.78 8.43 0.35 0.38 8.53 2.66 7.52 16 1.10 0.58 2.75 0.33 3.04 6.57 -0.58 -5.11 0.

48 0.96 1.95 1.74 -8.14 0.87 -3.85 2.38 0.48 0.41 0.06 0.29 -7.75 0.96 1.37 0. Type Hotel Location Chicago Atlanta Ft.38 0.14 0.Rate 0.78 0.26 0.07 0.08 -0.97 0.73 -7.61 0.16 0.42 1.26 0.28 0.80 0.11 0.55 1.69 0.63 6.53 0. High Eff.36 0.55 1.44 0.49 -0.71 0.42 0.21 0.40 1.07 2.04 1.58 -14.97 1.94 -10.09 0.56 1.26 9.73 -17.38 0. Electric Chillers ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 55 .15 0.70 0.71 1.10 0.10 0.12 0.31 0.42 0.65 2.05 0.14 0.07 0.37 0.12 0.08 0.47 -34.38 0.09 0.42 4.15 0.59 0.10 0.66 -0.72 0.30 -5.50 1.22 1.10 0.55 1.54 0.52 0.72 -0.19 0.45 0.57 2.38 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.66 Medical Clinic School Large Retail Figure 48 (continued) .08 0.35 12.07 0.09 3.08 0.75 1.37 -2.98 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.16 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.10 0.07 1.21 0.34 0.26 0.75 3.31 0.06 -1.16 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.07 0.07 -4.36 0.07 0.03 0.48 -0.03 0.33 1.36 0.24 16 -0.11 8 -0.65 2.68 -1. Utility Rate Gas Rate Elec.03 -1.91 2.04 1.60 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Bldg.00 1.08 0.50 -5.48 0.04 -1.44 -0.41 0.19 0.42 0.36 -0.12 0.11 0.24 -0.38 0.46 0.24 1.84 8.42 -6.55 0.66 0.71 -3.07 1.12 0.81 0.55 0.37 0.98 0.24 1.00 2.33 2.12 0.60 -25.10 0.52 1.55 0.50 0.33 -0.83 Scalar 12 -0.55 0.83 1.SIR for DFDE vs.43 1.63 5.54 0.80 0.74 1.39 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Marg.59 0.99 -11.13 0.76 0.47 0.38 0.03 -0.51 7.48 0.80 0.80 0.58 0.18 1.47 0.42 0.33 1.05 1.44 3.63 0.13 3.18 6.07 0.99 1.49 0.99 1.

Medium Office 3.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.70 0.55 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Scalar = 12.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).25 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .65 0.65 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h 2.60 0. High Eff. DFDE vs. Chiller .W or t h 2.55 0. Costs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .W or t h 2. Chiller 56 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .Medium Office 3.35 0.Medium Office 3.60 0. High Eff.60 0. Elec.30 0. Costs.30 0.0 0.35 0.65 0. High Eff. Scalar = 16.40 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). DFDE vs.25 0. High Eff.70 0.70 0.50 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).50 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .30 0. Costs.45 0. Chiller .75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 49 .35 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office.45 0.45 0. DFDE vs. Elec.40 0.40 0. DFDE vs. Chiller .25 0. Elec.55 0.50 0. Scalar = 8.

0 Ft . High Eff.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.W or t h 2.Medium Office 3. Chiller . High Eff.30 0.0 0.15 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 50 . Elec.Medium Office 3. Scalar = 16.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Elec. DFDE vs.0 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).10 0.20 0. Chiller .15 0. DFDE vs. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.30 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.15 0. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 57 . High Eff.25 0.Medium Office 3.05 0.20 0.05 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Scalar = 8. Scalar = 12.25 0. DFDE vs.05 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs.25 0.10 0.20 0. Chiller .10 0.0 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 Ft .SIR for various marginal electric costs for Medium Office. High Eff.30 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.

Costs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.40 0.60 0.0 0.25 0. Scalar = 8.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs. Elec.30 0.65 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.50 0.0 Ft .W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0.55 0.0 Ft .W or t h 2. DFDE vs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. Chiller . Costs.30 0.50 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).60 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.25 0.40 0. DFDE vs. Scalar = 16.Large Office 3.55 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Chiller .40 0.35 0.Large Office 3.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs.65 0. Scalar = 12. Chiller 58 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. High Eff.60 0.30 0. Costs.0 0.65 0.Large Office 3.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 0. Elec.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.45 0.70 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.70 0. High Eff.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 51 . Chiller .70 0. Elec. High Eff. High Eff.35 0.50 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office.35 0.

20 0. Elec.0 Ft .35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 52 .15 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.30 0.Large Office 3. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 59 .25 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. High Eff.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . High Eff. Chiller .35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Scalar = 8. Scalar = 12.30 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. DFDE vs.0 0.10 0. DFDE vs.20 0.20 0. DFDE vs.0 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Large Office 3. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.Large Office 3.SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Office.10 0. Scalar = 16. Elec.25 0.05 0.05 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.30 0. Chiller . High Eff. Chiller .W or t h 2.15 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). DFDE vs.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). High Eff.0 0.25 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.10 0.05 0.0 Ft .15 0. Elec. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.

30 0.Hospital 3. High Eff.65 0.70 0. Costs.25 0.W or t h 2.60 0.70 0. Chiller .0 0.0 Ft . DFDE vs.W or t h 2.50 0.35 0.50 0.40 0.55 0. Scalar = 12.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.45 0.60 0. High Eff. High Eff.35 0. Costs.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 53 .65 0.0 0.35 0.25 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital. DFDE vs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Elec.60 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.70 0.30 0. Chiller 60 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . DFDE vs.45 0. Chiller .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. High Eff.40 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Scalar = 16.0 0.40 0.65 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. DFDE vs. Costs.25 0. Elec. Chiller .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).30 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.45 0.Hospital 3. Elec.50 0.Hospital 3.55 0. Scalar = 8.55 0.

Scalar = 8.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).20 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.25 0. Elec. Chiller .Hospital 3.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.05 0.10 0. DFDE vs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.20 0.15 0.20 0.05 0. High Eff.25 0.10 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 Ft . DFDE vs. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 61 . DFDE vs. Elec.SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hospital. High Eff.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs.30 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.25 0.10 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 54 .30 0.W or t h 2.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). High Eff. Chiller . Chiller .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.Hospital 3.05 0. Elec. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.Hospital 3. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. Scalar = 16.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ft . Scalar = 12.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . High Eff.15 0.0 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.30 0.

30 0.0 SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) C hi cago At l ant a 2. Chiller 62 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.50 0.30 0.Hotel 3.25 0.Hotel 3. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) San Fr anci sco Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 0.0 Ft .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.45 0. Elec. DFDE vs.0 0. Chiller . Chiller .0 Ft .35 0.45 0.35 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego 0.50 0.60 0. DFDE vs. Chiller .40 0. DFDE vs.25 0. DFDE vs. Scalar = 12.65 0.0 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Costs. High Eff. Costs.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 55 .65 0. Elec.Hotel 3.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Scalar = 8.35 0.55 0.60 0.50 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. High Eff. Costs.0 P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Scalar = 16.40 0.40 0.70 0.55 0.W or t h 2.65 0.60 0.70 0. Elec.70 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. High Eff.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de 1.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).30 0.55 0.25 0.45 0. High Eff.

Hotel 3. DFDE vs.0 Ft .35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 56 . High Eff.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).SIR for various marginal electric costs for Hotel.20 0. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 63 .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 0. High Eff.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Scalar = 8.15 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 0.W or t h 2.25 0. Elec.30 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Scalar = 12.20 0.25 0.05 0. Chiller .0 0.10 0. High Eff. DFDE vs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.30 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. DFDE vs.10 0.0 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.05 0.15 0. Elec. Elec.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 1. Scalar = 16.W or t h 2.Hotel 3.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs.20 0. High Eff.15 0. Chiller .05 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.Hotel 3.25 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .30 0. Chiller .10 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.

0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.60 0.W or t h 2.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .40 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs.25 0.40 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .25 0.30 0.W or t h 2.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .70 0.0 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).30 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.45 0.30 0. Costs. Elec.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm) Figure 57 . Elec.40 0.0 0. High Eff.45 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. DFDE vs.65 0.50 0. High Eff.Clinic 3. Scalar = 12.25 0.65 0. Chiller . High Eff. Scalar = 8.35 0.Clinic 3. Chiller . DFDE vs.0 0. Costs. High Eff.50 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Costs. Scalar = 16.70 0.55 0.50 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Chiller . Chiller 64 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.55 0.Clinic 3.35 0.W or t h 2. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.55 0.70 0.65 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). DFDE vs.60 0.45 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Elec.60 0.35 0.

Clinic 3.30 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .10 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. Scalar = 12.30 0. Chiller .SIR for various marginal electric costs for Clinic.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.25 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.15 0. High Eff. High Eff.0 Ft .Clinic 3.10 0.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).35 Figure 58 .35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).30 0. Chiller .0 0. Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. High Eff.15 0. DFDE vs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Elec. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.05 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). High Eff.20 0. Chiller .25 0.10 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Scalar = 8. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 65 .0 0.Clinic 3.15 0.05 0.W or t h 2.25 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) 0.0 0. Scalar = 16. DFDE vs.20 0. DFDE vs.20 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. DFDE vs.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Elec.0 Ft .05 0.

50 0. Costs.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Scalar = 8. Scalar = 16. DFDE vs.35 0. Elec.65 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. Costs.55 0. Chiller .25 0.55 0.0 0. High Eff.35 0.0 0.60 0.35 0.W or t h 2.50 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.25 0. Elec.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. High Eff. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Costs.SIR for various marginal gas costs for School.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 59 .0 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Elec.School 3.60 0. Chiller 66 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .45 0.40 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .40 0.45 0.0 Ft .School 3.55 0.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).School 3.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).65 0. Chiller .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs.60 0. DFDE vs.45 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.30 0.30 0.70 0.70 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.40 0. DFDE vs.65 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. High Eff.30 0. Chiller .50 0.25 0. Scalar = 12. High Eff.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h 2.70 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.

Scalar = 12.SIR for various marginal electric costs for School.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.20 0.School 3.W or t h 2. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 67 . High Eff.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Chiller .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Elec.0 Ft .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. DFDE vs.0 0.30 0.0 0.30 0.10 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).05 0. DFDE vs.10 0.15 0.25 0. DFDE vs. Elec. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.25 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.25 0. High Eff.0 0. High Eff. DFDE vs.20 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.School 3.05 0. Scalar = 16.20 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. Scalar = 8.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.School 3.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.30 0. Chiller .35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 60 . for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.05 0. High Eff. Elec. Chiller .10 0.15 0.15 0.0 Ft .

Chiller .50 0. Costs. DFDE vs.65 0. Elec.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.W or t h 2.W or t h 2. Elec. Scalar = 8.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).35 0.60 0.60 0. Chiller .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. High Eff.50 0.35 0.Large Retail 3.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs.55 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.30 0. Chiller .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Costs.65 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . DFDE vs.30 0.35 0.Large Retail 3.50 0. DFDE vs.25 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).45 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.75 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 61 .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Costs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.45 0. Scalar = 16.40 0.70 0. High Eff.W or t h 2. Scalar = 12.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.40 0. Elec.45 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.Large Retail 3. High Eff.0 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail.0 0.55 0.40 0.60 0.70 0. Chiller 68 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . High Eff.

for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs. DFDE vs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Scalar = 8.20 0. Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 69 .0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. High Eff.30 0. Elec. Elec. High Eff.0 0.10 0.25 0.25 0. Scalar = 16.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Scalar = 12. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.20 0.W or t h 2.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .W or t h 2.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Figure 62 .SIR for various marginal electric costs for Large Retail.15 0.Large Retail 3.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).05 0. DFDE vs. DFDE vs.Large Retail 3.0 0.05 0.20 0.15 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 0.05 0. for various Marginal Electric Costs and fixed Gas Costs.25 0.30 0.10 0. Chiller .Large Retail 3. Chiller . High Eff.30 0.15 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).W or t h 2.10 0. Elec. High Eff.35 Marginal Elec Costs ($/kWh) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Chiller . DFDE vs.

80 0.63 0.32 26.56 3.27 3. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Marg.01 1.07 12.23 15.18 4.43 6.55 0.37 0.20 0.20 0.67 37.20 0.93 2.39 0.18 2.45 2.86 2.59 13.62 1.30 31.20 0.11 15.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Double vs.40 0.60 19.95 4.45 2.72 7.20 5.29 1.29 10.92 Scalar 12 1. Gas Rate 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.89 4.42 8 0.18 7.43 29.66 13. Type Medium Office Location Chicago Atlanta Ft.56 0.52 2.41 2.70 1.82 10.14 1.49 19.46 4.36 0.92 2.39 1.20 0.64 20.89 2.36 0.90 5.89 19.34 1.36 4.20 0.02 2.32 22.90 5.20 0.28 1.19 26. Single Effect Absorption Chiller Bldg.43 0.47 0.02 3.15 15.84 18.53 5.91 8.20 0.38 16 1.68 2.36 3.91 9.79 8.51 17.49 0.34 0.56 2.40 0.40 10.04 6.80 0.31 0.58 3.68 1. Single Effect Absorption Chillers 70 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .09 2.84 3.42 0.20 0.47 0.24 2.21 14.14 5.SIR for Double vs.84 Large Office Hospital Figure 63 . Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.76 1.76 8.13 13.76 27.80 41.24 1.67 4.74 55.34 6.78 4.48 2.43 1.72 23.43 0.87 27.14 25.20 0.30 7.08 11.06 7.79 2.

20 3.98 2.83 11.62 4.42 6.57 5.35 0.43 19.20 Scalar 12 8.80 0.59 0.41 0.88 0.29 12.94 10.39 6.35 0.64 3.36 0.87 21.40 1.03 2.95 0.41 10.53 0.87 0.55 8 5.10 0.01 2.37 0.65 22.02 10.26 3.14 1.80 6.13 10.66 0.47 3.20 39.54 1.33 0. Gas Rate 0.40 0.71 9.47 0.84 2.34 0.40 3.02 4.10 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Marg.59 0.16 28.61 0.19 4.88 20.62 7.36 6.41 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Bldg.99 10.80 26.38 0.74 17.49 0.00 3.36 0.30 4.58 14.57 4. Single Effect Absorption Chillers ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 71 .53 0.41 0.69 0.50 5.55 0.58 0.60 2.71 3.58 9.46 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.62 8.09 2.80 0.80 16 11.04 20. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.58 0.42 7.96 4.60 4.40 0.00 19.91 15.75 8.82 20.44 0.87 1.42 0.83 0.54 1.01 3.38 0.16 1.46 5.31 3.42 0.32 5.15 8.43 7.00 9.11 15.07 0. Worth Miami Washington DC LA City Riverside Phoenix San Diego San Francisco Chicago Atlanta Ft.49 0.44 19.60 53.37 2.48 0.00 1. Type Hotel Location Chicago Atlanta Ft.84 13.57 14.SIR for Double vs.41 0.53 0.22 3.92 0.55 0.74 4.23 8.13 2.80 0.65 2.94 0.47 6.37 0.47 0.40 0.58 25.15 1.60 0.47 0.44 0.78 12.37 0.27 5.41 Medical Clinic School Large Retail Figure 63 (continued) .52 0.00 2.40 0.72 1.05 3.31 4.07 4.03 15.94 0.76 1.68 4.97 3.27 0.00 14.93 6.80 0.53 2.97 0.56 3.80 3.

30 0.20 0.40 0. Costs. Chiller . Chiller . for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Medium Office.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 64 .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 1. Single Effect Absorption Chiller 72 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . Scalar = 12.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).80 0.60 0.0 SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) C hi cago At l ant a 2.30 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.Medium Office 3. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.20 0.60 0.0 0.Medium Office 3. Scalar = 8.50 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Costs.50 0.70 0. Double vs Single Effect Abs.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. Chiller .0 0. Scalar = 16.40 0.Medium Office 3. Double vs Single Effect Abs.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 1.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 0.0 Ft .70 0.50 0.0 Ft .W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 1. Double vs Single Effect Abs.0 0.80 0.40 0.60 0. Double vs.0 0.0 0.30 0. Costs.70 0.80 0.0 Ft .20 0.

for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0.0.Large Office 3.80 0.W or t h 2.20 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Double vs. Double vs.40 0. Scalar = 16. Chiller .0 All values are above 3. The measure is cost-effective for these conditions. Costs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 All values are above 3.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .80 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Single Effect Abs. Scalar = 8. Single Effect Abs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 73 .0 0. Chiller .Large Office 3.60 0.50 0.Large Office 3.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .70 0.0 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .70 0. Scalar = 12.30 0.0 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.30 0.0 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.50 0. Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.60 0. Chiller .70 0.20 0. Costs.40 0. The measure is cost-effective for these conditions.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Office.20 0.80 0. Double vs. Single Effect Abs.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 65 .60 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 2.30 0.50 0.0 1.40 0.W or t h 2. Costs.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Double vs.

20 0.20 0.Hospital 3. Single Effect Abs.70 0.80 0. Scalar = 12. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 0. The measure is cost-effective for these conditions. Chiller .SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hospital. Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.W or t h 2.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. The measure is cost-effective for these conditions.40 0. Scalar = 8. Costs.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 66 .0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .40 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).30 0. Chiller .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Hospital 3.0.70 0. Costs.0. Double vs. Single Effect Abs.80 0.40 0.60 0.0 All values are above 3. Chiller .20 0.50 0.30 0. Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 All values are above 3.30 0.W or t h 2. The measure is cost-effective for these conditions. Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Double vs. Single Effect Absorption Chiller 74 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .80 0. Costs.60 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).60 0.50 0. Scalar = 16.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Single Effect Abs.0. Double vs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.50 0.W or t h 2. Double vs.0 0.0 All values are above 3.Hospital 3.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.70 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.

0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).20 0.20 0. Chiller . Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.70 0.70 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.Hotel 3.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.60 0.Hotel 3.Hotel 3. Single Effect Absorption Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 75 .0 All values are above 3.0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Double vs. The measure is cost-effective for these conditions.0 All values are above 3. Single Effect Abs. Scalar = 8.50 0.80 0.50 0.30 0.50 0. Costs.40 0.40 0.60 0.80 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Single Effect Abs. Costs. Chiller .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.W or t h 2.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).70 0.W or t h 2.0 Ft . Chiller . Double vs. The measure is cost-effective for these conditions. Double vs. Costs.0.0 All values are above 3.0 0. Scalar = 12. Single Effect Abs.0 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2. Scalar = 16.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Hotel.0 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.30 0.80 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). The measure is cost-effective for these conditions.30 0.60 0. Double vs. Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.20 0.40 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 67 .

20 0.W or t h 2.0 0. Costs. Costs.W or t h 2.30 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 68 . Single Effect Abs.Clinic 3. Single Effect Abs. Double vs.50 0.Clinic 3.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Costs.0 P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Clinic. Scalar = 8.40 0.80 0.20 0. Double vs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).70 0. Double vs. Scalar = 12.Clinic 3.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de 1. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.30 0.70 0. Double vs.50 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.40 0.60 0.0 0.70 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .0 0.50 0.60 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.20 0. Scalar = 16. Chiller .30 0. Chiller . for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Single Effect Absorption Chiller 76 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .40 0.60 0.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Single Effect Abs.W or t h 2. Chiller .80 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).80 0.

20 0. Single Effect Absorption Chiller ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 77 .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .0 P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de 1.School 3.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.0 0.SIR for various marginal gas costs for School.20 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Scalar = 8. Double vs. Chiller .W or t h 2. Single Effect Abs. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Costs. Costs.40 0.40 0. Chiller .70 0. Double vs.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Costs.School 3.60 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Double vs.30 0.70 0.0 0.70 0.50 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).School 3.W or t h 2.80 0.30 0.80 0.40 0.W or t h 2. Chiller .60 0.50 0. Scalar = 16.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Double vs.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 69 .50 0.0 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Scalar = 12.30 0. Single Effect Abs.60 0. Single Effect Abs.0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.20 0.80 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft .

0 Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.Large Retail 3.80 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec. Single Effect Abs.50 0.50 0.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). Scalar = 16.30 0. Chiller . Ri ver si de P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0. Costs.40 0.80 0.60 0.20 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 P hoeni x San D i ego San Fr anci sco 0.Large Retail 3.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).0 Ft . Double vs.50 0. Single Effect Absorption Chiller 78 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ANALYSIS GRAPHS Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR).W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1. Chiller .20 0.0.40 0.90 Marginal Gas Costs ($/therm ) Figure 70 .20 0.0 M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y Ri ver si de 1.70 0. for various Marginal Gas Costs and fixed Elec.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a 2.SIR for various marginal gas costs for Large Retail.W or t h 2. Chiller . The measure is cost-effective for these conditions. Single Effect Abs.0 0.Large Retail 3.40 0.0 Ft . Double vs.0 0. Double vs. Costs. Scalar = 12.0 C hi cago SIR (LCC Savings/Incremental Equipment Cost per ton) At l ant a Ft . Single Effect Abs.80 0.30 0.60 0.60 0. Scalar = 8.0 All values are above 3.0 0.70 0.W or t h M i am i W ash D C LA C i t y 1.70 0. Costs. Double vs.30 0.

1997. ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 79 . 94. Milton.S. Nov. AEE. 6. Denver CO. Inc. (AGCC). DOE. 20. Commercial Gas Cooling: An Investment Opportunity. 1997. Jan 1998. ASHRAE. Energy User News. Flemin. Garland. Natural Gas Cooling Equipment Guide. GRI-97/0140. Globalcon ’96. Gas Research Institute.1 Code Compliance Manual. Inc. AGCC web site (agcc. An Independent Problem. ASHRAE Short Course.CHAPTER 6: BIBLIOGRAPHY American Gas Cooling Center. 1997. Vol. Gas Cooling Technologies: Solving Energy and Environmental Problems..5. Vol. 11. 1995.Options for the 21st Century.. Patricia. U. Meckler. AEE. Welesko Garland. ASHRAE 90.org). 1996. GARD Analytics. Chapter 41. Robert. 1998 Refrigeration Handbook. April 1996. No. GARD Analytics. Case for Hybrid Gas/Electric Chiller Plants . Chillers’ Waste Heat Can Augment Energy Savings. 4th Edition.. Science Applications International Corporation. No. Basic Engine and Basic Absorption Power Point presentations. Energy Engineering. Vol 94. Energy Engineering. William S. (AGCC). American Gas Cooling Center. Absorption Chillers: Technology for the Future.

.

000 sq. External loads from the three sides of the building in thermal contact with the rest of the mall. 5 days a week plus half-day on Saturday. 6 days a week and from 10AM to 6PM on Sundays and holidays. 348-bed hospital. ft. 3story structure made of precast exterior concrete panels. It is of face brick construction. Building Type Descriptions 1. 3. The heating is by a gas-fired hot water generator. ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 81 .. 5. 6. Large Office Building This structure is a hexagonal shaped 38-story office building with 18. The HVAC system is a rooftop packaged VAV unit with DX air cooled condensing unit. Retail Store The retail store is a high quality department store located in a shopping mall. reheat constant volume. (The original building had sloped glass on the lower level. Operating hours are 10AM to 10PM. 272. These units are all served by hermetic centrifugal chillers and gas-fired hot water generators.200 sq. ft. Junior High School The junior high school is a 50. It is a slab-on-grade building of wood frame construction with display windows on the west and south walls.CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX A. multipurpose rooms. 4-pipe fan coil and CVVT. with 82% of the floor area devoted to merchandising and office and 18% devoted to storage and stock preparation. with the other four sides having 15% glass. building with combination auditorium/recreation space. ft. The glass area on the SE and NW sides is about 50%. The west windows are shaded by a canopy. none on Sundays or holidays. The chillers are centrifugal and heating is supplied by gas-fired hot water generators. . There is very little glass except for entry doors. The chiller is DX air cooled and the heating is by a gas-fired hot water generator.). The glass is 36% of the wall area on all sides and is vertical. The classroom section is 2-stories high. end unit of a street mall with one portion of one side connected to another store. The HVAC systems are split into a core VAV system and a perimeter VAV system with reheat coils for the perimeter only. 6 days a week and 10AM to 6PM Sundays and holidays. Medium Office Building This building is a 49.200 sq. and classrooms. The HVAC system has three powered induction units serving each floor separately. other than historical interest?) Occupancy is 330 people. The building is occupied from 8AM to 6PM weekdays. The HVAC systems are constant volume variable temperature (CVVT) served by centrifugal chillers and gas-fired hot water generators.000 sq. ft. ft.000 sq.is this comment of any significance. Construction is steel frame with limestone cladding. are neglected. with variable-air-volume (VAV) air handling units on the roof. 10% occupied during the same hours on Saturday and unoccupied Sundays and holidays. It is a 2-story masonry structure of 164. The glazing on the west and south exposures is about 35% of the wall area.600 sq. 4. The store is open for business 10AM to 10PM. but on the south side there is no shading.. Hospital The building is a 4-story. ft. Walls are constructed of face brick and stucco. Strip Retail The strip store is a typical 9. per floor (total of 684. The building is modeled 2. There are multiple types of HVAC systems such as dual duct.000 sq. 4-pipe induction. ft.

The HVAC system includes a multi-zone unit serving the public areas and a CVVT unit serving the kitchen area. 2. 30% public areas such as lobby. 50% on the east and less than 10% on the south and north. food storage and food service and dining areas. 82 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES . ft. Construction is of reinforced concrete. and 5% service area. The building is 70% glass on the west. 7 days per week.000 square foot building with wood frame construction. The building is a 1-story brick structure with 9. Heating is from two hot water generators. 9. with 4-pipe fan coil units in the guest rooms and CVVT for makeup air units supplying ventilation air to the corridors for guest room bathrooms. of floor space with a main dining area for 240 people and a lounge area for 60 people. Fast Food Restaurant The fast food restaurant is atypical major chain design with food preparation. 8. The restaurant is a single floor. Typical periods of occupancy are from 5AM to midnight. south.CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX with CVVT units with centrifugal chiller and gas-fired heaters. The primary cooling is provided by two reciprocating chillers with air cooled condensers. restaurants and meeting rooms.060 sq. Hotel This 350 room hotel is a medium size convention-type facility with 10 floors totaling 315. Floor-to-roof height is 12 feet. The HVAC system is a mix of VAV and CVVT in the public areas.000 sq. ft. Windows are present on the north. 7. Makeup air requirements are about 65% of the total supply air. The restaurant has 4 five-ton DX packaged rooftop units with 150.000 Btuh input gas heating each. Full Service Restaurant This full service restaurant is open from 7AM to 12 midnight all days including holidays. Maximum occupancy is 81 persons. and a builtup roof. The space utilization divides as follows: 65% guest rooms. brick veneer. and west walls.

CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX B. Summary of Utility Rates ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 83 .

Cal. Gas General Service GN-10 GN-20 G-AC GN-10 GN-20 G-AC GN-1 GN-2 G-NR1 G-NR2 G-11 G-11 AC G-12 G-13 LLF G-13 AC LLF CG-25 Small CG-25 Medium CG-25 Large CG-40 SGS GS GSLV-1 GSLV-2 Rider LE Riverside So. Worth Los Angeles City Utility NiCor Rate Name 4 Rate Type General Service General Service General Service General Service General Service Air Conditioning General Service General Service Air Conditioning General Service General Service General Service General Service General Service Air Conditioning Heating Only General Service Air Conditioning General Service General Service General Service Air Conditioning General Service General Service General Service General Service Air Conditioning Minimum Maximum (Therms/Mo) (Therms/Mo) 0 0 0 0 20800 0 0 20800 0 0 20800 0 20800 0 0 0 0 0 0 >600 >15000 0 0 >108 >2708 >54166 0 No Limit No Limit No Limit <20800 No Limit No Limit <20800 No Limit No Limit <20800 No Limit <20800 No Limit <2000 th/day <2000 th/day <2000 th/day <5000 th/day <5000 th/day 600 15000 No Limit No Limit 108 2708 54166 No Limit No Limit Summer (¢/therm) 33 79 48 34-51 34-48 38 34-51 34-48 38 49 42 53 41 78 36 82 74 36 62 53 34 32 85 73 70 63 40% of above Washington Gas Light 2 Lone Star Gas So. Cal. Gas San Diego San Diego G & E San Francisco Pacific G & E Atlanta Atlanta Gas Light Phoenix Southwest Gas Miami Peoples Gas 84 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX Summary of Gas Utility Rates Used City Chicago Washington DC Dallas/Ft.

Cal.CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX Summary of Electric Utility Rates Used City Chicago Utility ComEd Rate Name 6 6L GS-Non Demand GS-Demand GT GS A-1 (Rate A) A-2 (Rate A) A-3 (Rate C) GS-2 TOU-8 A (No Demand) AD (Demand Metered) AL-TOU A-10 E-19S E-20S PLS-2 PLM-2 PLL-2 E-32 GSD-1 GSLD-1 GSLD-2 Rate Type Non TOU TOU Non TOU Non TOU TOU Non TOU Non TOU Non TOU TOU Non TOU TOU Non TOU Non TOU TOU Non TOU TOU TOU Non TOU Non TOU Non TOU Non TOU Non TOU Non TOU Non TOU Min Demand Max Demand (kW) (kW) 0 1000 0 25 100 10 0 30 500 20 500 0 20 >500 0 500 1000 0 30 500 0 20 500 2000 <1000 <10000 <25 <100 No Limit No Limit <30 <500 No Limit <500 No Limit <20 500 No Limit <500 <1000 No Limit <30 <500 No Limit No Limit <500 <2000 No Limit Summer On Peak (¢/kWh) 3 5 12 8 6 5 10 5 8 4 9 14 9 9 9 9 9 9-10 6-10 6-10 8 5 4 4 Summer On-Peak ($/kW) 14 16 0 12 24 14 3 18 14 25 24 0 10 27 7 17 17 16 18 18 6 9 9 9 Washington DC Potomac Electric Dallas/Ft. Edison San Diego San Diego G & E San Francisco Pacific G & E Atlanta Georgia Power Phoenix Miami Arizona Pub Serv Florida P & L ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 85 . Worth Los Angeles City Texas Utilities LA Dept W & P Riverside So.

Equipment First Cost Size (tons) Electric Screw Hi Eff.CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX C. Electric Screw SE Steam Absorption DE Direct-Fired Absorption Engine-Driven Screw 100-350 100-350 100-350 100-350 100-350 Cost ($/ton) 360 414 510 740 700 Electric Centrifugal Hi Eff. 3) 35% cost premium for high efficiency electric centrifugal chiller versus standard centrifugal chiller per ASHRAE 90. FOB price plus 20% 2) 15% cost premium for high efficiency electric screw chiller versus standard screw chiller per ASHRAE 90. 86 SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES .1 cost analysis. Electric Centrifugal SE Steam Absorption DE Direct-Fired Absorption Engine-Driven Centrifugal Boiler Cooling Tower 350-450 350-450 350-450 350-450 350-450 259 349 264 627 528 $11 per 1000 Btuh $55 per AC ton Notes: 1) Chiller costs from 1997 manufacturer's data.1 cost analysis. 4) Boiler and cooling tower cost from Means.

0. Likewise.6 times the first year’s savings (scalar ratio = 3. A discount rate of 3% in this example yields a scalar ratio of 5. This discussion explains their meaning and derivation. it can be applied to other investment scenarios that share the same economic rates of energy cost and maintenance cost escalation. If the investment is a good one. If you simply add up these costs after five years. On the other hand. you will expect to save $5. If the discount rate is 15%. An LCC analysis is preferable to a simple payback analysis. In some cases more efficient equipment allows downsizing of other equipment in the building. such as the electrical load center and service drop. Once the scalar ratio is determined.051.6). Scalar Ratio and SIR of savings does not exceed the investment cost. In the example. the present worth of the savings is $5. This number is then divided by the net savings for the first year. maintenance costs were not included because there are too many variables and the additional complication would not have increased the clarity or accuracy of the analysis. The process of discounting these future dollars back to present dollars is a straightforward calculation (most spreadsheets have built-in present worth functions). then the investment will not provide the minimum rate of return and could be better spent on another investment. While LCC analysis can be quite complicated and difficult to understand. An SIR compares the life cycle savings to the initial investment. or as the minimum rate of return one demands from investments. the present worth of the discounted savings will exceed the cost of the investment. Once the included costs and savings are laid out over the life of the investment. and are therefore less willing to invest in efficiency measures that have lower savings. public agencies and most individuals have lower discount rates and accept lower rates of return in exchange for reliable returns. Investors with high discount rates have higher expectations for their returns on investment. The discount rate may be thought of as the interest rate one would earn if the first cost dollars were put into a reliable investment. Figure 71 shows a simple spreadsheet illustrating how this basic scenario would be calculated. A scalar ratio is a mathematical simplification of life cycle costing (LCC) analysis. which is 3.0 and indicates that a substantially higher initial investment of $5. is assumed to escalate at a different steady rate. the terms scalar ratio and SIR (savings to investment ratio) are used to describe the economic analysis of measures. To be conservative.734. any positive present worth of energy savings indicates a sound investment. These savings can be significant enough to offset the incremental cost of the more efficient equipment. to obtain the scalar ratio. and the annual maintenance costs escalate at 2% per year. because it enables a more realistic assessment of all the costs and savings to be expected over the life of an investment. each year’s net savings is discounted back to present dollars. then it meets the investment criteria and will provide a rate of return greater than 15%. The discounted present worth is calculated using the spreadsheet’s net present value (NPV) function using the string of annual totals and the discount rate.799. Scalar Ratios Simplified In technical terms.239 could be justified. a scalar ratio and an SIR are relatively simple to use. when included. and the resulting present worth values are summed to arrive at the life cycle energy savings. if the discount rate is 3%. Of course. the first year’s savings are $1. If the initial investment to achieve these savings was less than $3.799. The present worth of a future dollar earned (or saved) is a function of the number of years in the future that the dollar is earned. The annual energy costs are assumed to escalate at a steady rate over the years and an annual maintenance cost. we have ignored these potential related savings. resulting in a lower overall first cost. One simply calculates the first year’s energy savings and multiplies it by the scalar ratio to obtain the net present worth of the savings. the scalar ratio represents the series present worth multiplier. followed by a series of annual energy savings realized during the lifetime of the measure.239 and the scalar ratio is 5. these savings have a present worth of $3. in the case where the net cost of the higher efficiency equipment is lower than that of the base case equipment. and of the discount rate. This can be understood by assuming a simple situation: an initial investment in an energy efficiency measure. in the development of these Guidelines. Throughout the Guidelines. The annual energy savings escalate at 4% per year. If the present worth ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 87 . On the other hand. and provides some guidance on how to use them in better understanding the analysis graphs in these Guidelines.CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX D.

CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX

Year: Energy Savings (escalated 4%/yr); Maint. costs (escalated 2%/yr): Annual totals:

1 $1,200 ($150) $1,051

2 $1,248 ($153) $1,097

3 4 $1,298 $1,350 ($156) ($159) $1,145 $1,195 ( Sum of Annual totals: 3.6

5 $1,404 ($162) $1,246 $5,734 )

Discounted Present Worth: (15% discount rate) Discounted Present Worth: (3% discount rate)

$3,799

/ $1,051 = Scalar:

$5,239

/ $1,051 = Scalar:

5.0

Figure 71 - Example Present Worth Calculation (and discount rate) might be the rate of return expected from savings account or a money market fund (2% - 4%). An upper end might be the rate of return that an aggressive investor expects to produce with his money (10% - 20%), although it is difficult to argue that this represents an “assured investment.” Another way to think of the real discount rate is the real rate of return that competing investments must provide in order to change the choice of investments that the organization makes. The table in Figure 72 shows a range of typical scalars. It presents the resulting scalars for 8, 15 and 30-year study periods, discount rates ranging from 0% to 15% and escalation rates ranging from 0% to 6%.

Selecting a Scalar Ratio
To use the cost-effectiveness analysis graphs in this Guideline, one must select a scalar ratio by deciding on the economic conditions for their efficiency investments. The example discussed here has been rather simplistic, and the five-year analysis period is quite short for most energy efficiency measures. In selecting a scalar, users should decide on at least the following:

Period of Analysis - This is the number of years the energy efficiency investment is expected to provide savings. Some users will have a long-term perspective, and will choose a period of analysis that approaches the expected life of the measure. For long life measures, such as building insulation, the period of analysis may be thirty years or more. For mechanical system measures, the period may be fifteen years. Other users may choose a shorter analysis period because they are interested in their personal costs and benefits and are not expecting to hold the property for a long time. Public policy agencies setting energy codes may choose a societal perspective, based on the principle that building investments impinge on the environment and the economy for a longer period of time, and so may select a long period of analysis. Discount Rate - This is the real rate of return that would be expected from an assured investment. A rate of return offered by an investment instrument is the investment’s nominal interest rate and must be adjusted, by the loss in real value that inflation causes, to arrive at the real interest rate. Nominal discount rates must likewise be adjusted for inflation to find the real discount rate. In order to simplify the analysis, we assumed a zero inflation rate, which then makes the nominal and real discount rates the same. As discussed in the example above, different kinds of people may have different expectations. A lower end interest rate

Savings to Investment Ratios (SIRs)
An extension of the present worth and scalar concepts is the Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR). As indicated above, one is interested in both the incremental first cost of an investment (how much more it costs than the base case) and in the present worth of its cost savings. The SIR provides a simple way to compare the two: divide the present worth of the savings by the incremental first cost (or its present worth if the investment extends over time). If this ratio is greater than one, then the discounted savings are greater than the first cost, and the return on investment will be greater than the discount rate. The cost-effectiveness analysis graphs presented in this Guideline use the SIR on the vertical axis. Thus any points on the curves that lie above an SIR value of one are deemed to be cost effective.

Advanced Economic Analysis
The economic analysis could be more elaborate than the examples discussed here, of course, and could account for more factors. For example, there could be other maintenance costs that recur every few years, the energy

88

SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES

CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX

cost escalation factors could be non-linear, or the tax deductions for the operating and maintenance costs could be included. In addition, the first costs could be spread out over the years as loan payments and interest cost deductions. All of these costs would be discounted back to present dollar values and summed to arrive at the net present value, which compares the life cycle costs to the life cycle savings1. Analysis for different purposes will include both different types of inputs as well as varying levels for the input types chosen. For example, while a commercial building owner is likely to be interested in the economic impacts within a relatively short time frame, e.g., 8-10 years, a state energy office is likely to be more concerned with the societal economic impacts over a much longer term, like 30 years for residential energy codes. A business owner, who is looking at energy efficiency investments relative to other business uses of her capital, might also feel that a discount rate of 15% reflects her value for future energy savings. On the other hand, an energy efficiency program planner or energy code developer could justify a 0% discount rate as representative of the future value of resource savings. The table in Figure 73 provides guidance on selecting between the range of potential scalars. A more comprehensive economic analysis might also consider measure interactions and analyze the impacts of numerous building elements as a system. For example, increasing the level of roof insulation can lead to the ability to downsize the cooling equipment. Selection of a gas chiller could potentially allow the downsizing of the electric service drop and load center for the building. The analysis in this Guideline did not include such synergies because of the complication of identifying situations in which the additional savings could be expected. Appendix section A described the base case buildings that were used in the analysis for these Guidelines. A more comprehensive, targeted analysis would begin with an examination of these building descriptions to determine whether they are representative of the location of interest. The building design can greatly increase or decrease the cost effectiveness of various measures. For example, a base case office building with effective daylighting, reducing internal gains from lighting systems, and high performance glazing on the south, east and west, may have a small enough cooling load that high efficiency equipment will be less cost effective.

Finally, it is assumed in this analysis that a decision about the cost effectiveness of options is being made at the time of new construction. For program designers focusing on retrofit applications of these technologies, additional first costs will need to be included. This is less of an issue when the change-out is due to equipment failure and replacement is required. In the case of replacements for equipment that is still functioning, the incremental first cost will be the full cost of the new equipment minus the salvage value of the equipment removed. Obviously, the energy savings must be of much greater value to justify replacing equipment before the end of its useful life. As this discussion illustrates, a thorough economic analysis of energy efficiency investments can require considerable thought and calculation. The scalar and SIR approach used throughout these Guidelines provide a convenient method for simplifying the economic analysis task. For many purposes, this will be sufficient, provided the decision-makers who will be relying on this analysis understand its limitations.

1

For a more in-depth description, see Plant Engineers and Managers Guide to Energy Conservation, by Albert Thumann, Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA 1989.

ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE

89

CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX

Scalars for 8 year period Escalation rates Discount Rates 0% 3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 0% 8.0 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 2% 8.8 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.8 4% 9.6 8.4 7.7 7.1 6.5 6.0 5.6 5.2 6% 10.5 9.1 8.4 7.7 7.1 6.5 6.1 5.6

Scalars for 15 year period Scalars for 30 year period Escalation rates 0% 15.0 11.9 10.4 9.1 8.1 7.2 6.5 5.8 2% 17.6 13.9 12.0 10.4 9.2 8.1 7.3 6.5 4% 20.8 16.2 13.9 12.0 10.5 9.3 8.2 7.4 6% 24.7 19.0 16.2 13.9 12.1 10.6 9.3 8.3 0% 30.0 19.6 15.4 12.4 10.3 8.7 7.5 6.6 Escalation rates 2% 41.4 25.9 19.8 15.5 12.6 10.4 8.8 7.6 4% 58.3 35.0 26.0 19.9 15.7 12.8 10.6 9.0 6% 83.8 48.3 34.9 26.0 20.0 15.9 12.9 10.8

Figure 72 - Range of Typical Scalars

INPUT Measure Life Discount Rate Energy Cost Escalation Rate Maintenance Escalation Rate Inflation Rate Mortgage Interest Rate Tax Advantage

IF INPUT: Increases Increases Increases Increases Increases Increases Increases

THEN SCALAR TENDS TO: Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase

Figure 73 - Variable Effects on Scalar

90

SOCALGAS/NBI ADVANCED DESIGN GUIDELINES

CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX ABSORPTION CHILLERS GUIDELINE 91 .