backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Oct 20 at 11:35 AM


  (Source: phombo.com)
Empire State Building retrofit project could cut energy costs by $4.4 million per year

New York City has put some greener updates in its tallest skyscraper, the Empire State Building, in the form of refurbished windows that will reduce solar heat gain and decrease the building's energy costs.

These updated windows were installed as part of the Empire State Building retrofit project, which is funded by the Clinton Climate Initiative, the Rocky Mountain Institute, Jones Lang LaSalle and Johnson Controls. The entire project costs $20 million, and aims to cut CO2 emissions by 105,000 metric tons over the next 15 years. It is also expected to decrease energy consumption by 38 percent, and reduce energy costs by $4.4 million per year. 

The project has recently completed the refurbishing of the windows, which will decrease the building's energy costs by $400,000 per year alone. These 6,514 triple-glazed insulated windows panels, which contained 96 percent of the original glass and frames, will also cut solar heat gain by more than 50 percent.

But this project doesn't stop at making the windows more thermally efficient. In addition, the plan is to add insulation to radiators to avoid heat loss, introduce improved lighting, replace air handling units with variable frequency drive fans, improve controllability and efficiency by reusing chiller shells and "replacing the guts," upgrade building control system to improve HVAC operation, upgrade ventilation control system and introduce web-based power systems available to each individual tenant for better management of power usage.

With these updates, the Empire State Building could become LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold certified, which means it meets green criteria according to the U.S. Green Building Council

The project is expected to be completed by 2013, and upon completion, will become a model for other greener updates throughout New York City as well as other major cities. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: ROI...
By fic2 on 10/19/2010 12:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
That is the beauty of the free market - they can decide that it isn't worth the extra upfront cost to them. When you decide to buy a new car you can decide that it is worth the upfront cost to you.

The building I that I live in/own a unit I have convinced them of several "green" projects that are saving 10-15% of our energy costs. Most had a payback of less than 3 years. The one that I can't even convince myself on is replacement of our building boiler which is 14 years old. My estimates of payback were somewhere around 15 years. If some of the coal->natural gas electric plant conversions happen and the price of natural gas doubles I could probably see it, but at current prices it is not going to happen. Although I would love to do a solar hot water addition on the roof.


RE: ROI...
By The Raven on 10/19/2010 2:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong, I am all about the free market. I didn't once propose the gov't step in and tell these people what to do.

The problem as I see it is that people focus on this global warming mumbo jumbo instead of stuff they can touch, taste and see.

I just wish people would think about things other than just the money they may save on the immediate purchase and think about saving money long term and for themselves and the whole of society.

Case in point, my coworkers tell me not to worry about leaving the lights or A/C on because we don't pay for it. Well I explained to them that energy costs for all would be reduced if people stopped thinking that way. It seemed that they followed my logic, but it wasn't until I gave them some sob story about how the ice caps are melting and the cute penguins babies won't have a home anymore did they take a bit of heed.


RE: ROI...
By corduroygt on 10/20/2010 9:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Case in point, my coworkers tell me not to worry about leaving the lights or A/C on because we don't pay for it. Well I explained to them that energy costs for all would be reduced if people stopped thinking that way. It seemed that they followed my logic, but it wasn't until I gave them some sob story about how the ice caps are melting and the cute penguins babies won't have a home anymore did they take a bit of heed.

Your coworkers are certainly idiots, even if they didn't care about the environment, they'd care about saving their company some money, since maybe that extra saved money would save someone's job or make enough budget to hire one more person.
Me, personally, I hate to see anything go to waste, so I turn it off if i'm not using it.


RE: ROI...
By The Raven on 10/20/2010 11:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, we don't pay for the electricity directly. As a company. This is because we lease a building from an adjacent company and the power is 'on the house' so to speak.

My point is not that people are idiots (which my co-workers are not) but that people don't think very much about these things and it is only when you show them an Al Gore apocolypse movie that they start to think. And unfortunately they usually want to legislate their thoughts. And that IS idiotic, but unfortunately it is the norm now and I guess I can't blame them.

So anyway I try to do my part to get people to think about these things in a rational way.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki