|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 10:59 AM
Stanford energy facility to cut carbon in half
|
|
by Sue Dremann
Palo Alto Weekly Staff
Photo
 | A new Stanford energy facility that could reduce campus carbon emissions by 50 percent, cut water use by 18 percent and save the university an estimated $300 million in the next 35 years broke ground Wednesday, Oct. 10, the university announced.
Dubbed Stanford Energy System Innovations, the 125,000-square-foot facility will be located near Searsville Road. When completed the project will be among the most energy-efficient systems of any major research university in the world, according to Joseph Stagner, executive director of sustainability and energy management at Stanford.
The $438 million energy system would move Stanford from 100-percent, natural-gas-based heat and power to a more efficient electricity-based heating and cooling system. The project evolved from a 2008 university-wide energy and climate plan that focused on the environment and sustainable energy, the university noted.
More than 80 percent of Stanford's heating needs could be met by recycling waste heat already being removed from buildings, officials said. Stanford would recover and use the waste heat from its chilled-water system and would convert the existing central steam system for heating buildings to a more efficient hot-water system.
The university has used a natural-gas-fired cogeneration plant for most of its energy needs since 1987. Electricity is produced and waste heat from combustion is recovered and reused. But much of the heat generated by air conditioning and other systems is lost in the atmosphere through evaporation at the plant's cooling towers.
The new electric facility allows the university to obtain electricity from numerous sources, including renewable energy such as wind and solar. A Stanford-developed automated-control system allows obtaining the most cost-efficient electricity available at any time, the university said.
An estimated 70 percent of the waste heat previously lost would supply 80 percent of heat and hot water for campus buildings, the university noted.
Many Stanford buildings are heated and cooled simultaneously due to the area's climate and because research facilities are often refrigerated. New pipes in upgraded buildings could cut energy losses from 14 to 4 percent, according to the university.
The facility would reduce Stanford's carbon impact by amounts exceeding California's AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act goals, the university noted.
Stanford's energy improvements have also included retrofitting existing buildings and innovative building designs, such as the Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, which uses interior atria to channel hot air and windows that open at night to let in cool air.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm This is a bit confusing. Based on these two statements—
> save the university an estimated $300 million in the
> next 35 years
> The $438 million energy system would move Stanford
Is the University spending $438M to save $300M (over 35 years)? Or is there something missing here? If true—how is the University not losing $138M (or more, when all of the maintenance costs over the next 35 years is factored into the tally)?
|
|
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm >The new electric facility allows the university to obtain electricity from numerous sources, including renewable energy such as wind and solar. A Stanford-developed automated-control system allows obtaining the most cost-efficient electricity available at any time, the university said.
It seems to me that Stanford is making a wise and appropriate decision, regarding heat capture. However, is Stanford proposing to put wind tubine and photovoltaic farms in the Stanford foothills? Or are they just transferring those farms to the open wildnerness in other areas? If Stanford wants to make a statement, then those wind/solar industrial farms should be in our own foothills. Otherwise, we end up with an 'out-of-sight,out-of-mind' hypocricy issue.
|
|
Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community, on Oct 10, 2012 at 9:20 pm >>"those wind/solar industrial farms should be in our own foothills. Otherwise, we end up with an 'out-of-sight,out-of-mind' hypocricy issue. "
Absolutely right. And that's why it will never happen. Remember the "vocal minority" that forced Stanford to provide hiking trails to the Dish? What do you think they will do if solar panels were put on that hillside.
|
|
Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2012 at 12:02 pm >Remember the "vocal minority" that forced Stanford to provide hiking trails to the Dish? What do you think they will do if solar panels were put on that hillside.
That is the point. If local folks want to reduce the local carbon footprint, it should be done locally, as they usually say. Industrializing the Stanford foothills, with wind turbines and solar panels, would make a statement for those who want to walk the talk. Otherwise, they are hypocrits...they want to make other people suffer the industrialization of THEIR hills and wild lands.
I think the Stanford people should speak to this issue.
|
|
Posted by Jan H., a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Jan H. is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online The problem with many less polluting and energy saving alternatives, such as solar, for instance, is that they take decades to break even. They are also very expensive to purchase and install. Until things evolve and improve enough to make them affordable for a majority of people, and have a faster payoff, there will not be enough use of them to make any real difference. Fortunately for Stanford, they seem to have an endless supply of money from benefactors and rich and famous alumni.
|
|
|
| |
Best Website
First Place
2009-2012
|
Send this story
Print this story
