Mt. San Antonio Gardens HVAC & Solar Analyses

7/25/2019 Mt. San Antonio Gardens HVAC & Solar Analyses

1/11

HVAC AND SOLAR

ECONOMIC ANALYSISfor Mt. San Antonio Gardens

MAY 5, 2016

Energy Analysis Team

Lauren DSouza

Lillian Liang

Anthony Burre

Nova Quaoser

Roberts Environmental Center

Claremont McKenna College385 East 8th Street

Claremont, CA 91711

(909) 6218698

rec.cmc.edu


2/11

Roberts Environmental Center 2

ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS (KWH)

4 hours/day 8 hours/day

SEER Rating 2-ton 3-ton 2-ton 3-ton

14 3,337 5006 6674 10011

16 3,650 5475 7300 10950

18 3,893 5840 7787 11680

20 4,088 6132 8176 12264

HVAC UPGRADE SAVINGS

ANNUAL CO2 SAVINGS (TONS)

4 hours/day 8 hours/day

SEER Rating 2-ton 3-ton 2-ton 3-ton

14 2,336 3504 4672 7008

16 2,555 3832.5 5110 7665

18 2,725.33 4088 5450.67 8176

20 2,861.6 4292.4 5723.2 8584.8

The estimated annual savings

for upgrading to a 2-ton SEER

18 unit that is used 4 hours per

day are:

3,893 kWh

2,725 tons of CO2

$661.87 in energy costs

3.15 year payback period

from SEER 6

7.93 year payback period of

from SEER 10

The estimated annual savings for

upgrading to a 3-ton SEER 14

unit that is used 8 hours per day

are:

10,011 kWh

7,008 tons of CO2

$1701.94 in energy costs

0.88 year payback period from

SEER 6

2.94 year payback period from

SEER 10


3/11


The CO2 and energy savings are more affected by the daily usage of the unit

rather than the tonnage. If the average resident uses their unit for longer

periods of time each day, the baseline costs are higher, which equates to

proportionally higher savings with more efficient systems.

ANNUAL CO2 SAVINGS BASED TO SEER 6

Usage

2-ton 4 hours/day

3-ton 4 hours/day

2-ton 8 hours/day

3-ton 8 hours/day

Tons of CO2

0 2,250 4,500 6,750 9,000

SEER 14SEER 16

SEER 18

SEER 20

ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS BASED TO SEER 6

Usage

2-ton 4 hours/day

3-ton 4 hours/day

2-ton 8 hours/day

3-ton 8 hours/day

Energy (kWh)

0 3,250 6,500 9,750 13,000

SEER 14

SEER 16

SEER 18

SEER 20


4/11


ANNUAL COST OF A/C BASED ON

SIZE AND USAGE OF UNIT

Cost(USD)

$0.00

$750.00

$1,500.00

$2,250.00

$3,000.00

SEER Rating

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

2-ton 4 hours/day 2-ton 8 hours/day 3-ton 4 hours/day 3-ton 8 hours/day

ANNUAL SAVINGS COMPARED TO SEER 6

Savings(US

D)

$0.00

$750.00

$1,500.00

$2,250.00

$3,000.00

SEER Rating

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

2-ton 4 hours/day 2-ton 8 hours/day 3-ton 4 hours/day 3-ton 8 hours/day


5/11


RECOMMENDATIONS

PAYBACK PERIOD BASED TO SEER 6

Pay

backPeriod

(years)

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

SEER Rating

14 16 18 20

2-ton 4 hours/day

2-ton 8 hours/day

3-ton 4 hours/day

3-ton 8 hours/day

PAYBACK PERIOD (YEARS) BASED TO SEER 6

2-ton 3-ton

SEER Cost of Unit 4 hours/day 8 hours/day Cost of Unit 4 hours/day 8 hours/day

14 $1,100 1.94 0.97 $1,500 1.76 0.88

16 $1,600 2.58 1.29 $2,000 2.15 1.07

18 $2,100 3.17 1.59 $2,500 2.52 1.26

20 $2,600 3.74 1.87 $3,000 2.88 1.44

The payback periods for new, more efficient AC units were calculated from the

savings over SEER 6 and SEER 10 systems. These SEER ratings were chosen forour analysis based on a survey of the Gardens current AC units.


6/11


PAYBACK PERIOD BASED TO SEER 10

PaybackPeriod(years)

0

1.8

3.6

5.4

7.2

9

SEER Rating

14 16 18 20

2-ton 4 hours/day

2-ton 8 hours/day

3-ton 4 hours/day

3-ton 8 hours/day

PAYBACK PERIOD (YEARS) BASED TO SEER 10

2-ton 3-ton

SEER Cost of Unit 4 hours/day 8 hours/day Cost of Unit 4 hours/day 8 hours/day

14 $1,100 6.46 3.23 $1,500 5.88 2.94

16 $1,600 7.16 3.58 $2,000 5.97 2.98

18 $2,100 7.93 3.97 $2,500 6.3 3.15

20 $2,600 8.73 4.36 $3,000 6.72 3.36


7/11


NET PRESENT VALUE (OVER 10-YEAR PERIOD)

2-ton 3-ton

SEER Rating Cost of Unit Net Present Value Cost of Unit Net Present Value

14 $1,100 $166.41 $1500.00 $399.61

16 $1,600 $62.16 $2000.00 -$614.87

18 $2,100 -$130.04 $2500.00 -$1444.66

20 $2,600 -$383.79 $3000.00 -$2168.92

Net present valueis a metric used to evaluate an investment based on the

principle that money is more valuable now than in the future. We used a non-use interest rate of 3% to estimate the present value of projected returns of an

investment and compare it to the upfront cost.

CONCLUSION

Although the net present value analysis indicates a recommendation of SEER

14, there are other factors that lead us to recommend a higher upgrade.

1. Since SoCal Edisons energy rates rise by ~3.7% every year, a unit that uses

less power is increasingly more valuable over the 10-year lifespan of the unit.

2. The electricity rate that the Gardens pays is very complex, but it is primarily

based on peak demand. More efficient systems have the potential to reduce

peak demand, thus incurring a lower cost per kWh for the Gardens.

3. Residents of the Gardens can derive more pride or bragging rights from

picking the most environmentally friendly choice.

4. Similarly, the Gardens can use higher efficiency AC units in its marketing to

attract residents and show its commitment to energy efficiency, in the same way

that the Claremont Colleges use LEED certification.


8/11


SOLAR ECONOMICS

Because SoCal Edison energy prices rise at an estimated rate

of approximately 3.7% per year, each company offers

monetary savings after 25 years, indicating that any proposal

the Gardens chooses will pay off in the long term. However,

two of the PPA proposals (Cenergy and Solar City) initially do

not offer savings for the Gardens. SunPower clearly leads in

terms of savings, closely followed by OnSwitch, as both

companies potential savings surpass the other proposals even

in the very first year.


9/11



10/11



11/11


CONCLUSION

SunPoweroffers the best proposal for Mt. San Antonio Gardens.

1. The SunPower proposal has the highest net savings at approximately $2.1

million over 25 years, which is much higher than the other proposals.

2. SunPowers customer satisfaction and business ratings are consistently high.

3. SunPower has doubled its profits in the last year alone, which indicates its

financial stability, future prospects, and growing popularity.

4. The company utilizes innovative and more efficient technology; their panels

are manufactured in Japan and have a 22.4% aperture efficiency rate.

OnSwitchis a promising alternative to Sun Power, especially if they decide to

provide a larger array.

1. OnSwitch has the lowest cost per Watt ($1.75).

2. OnSwitch also has the lowest cost per kWh (7.2 cents).

3. The company has solid financial backing from Duke Energy Corporation.

4. The companys chief officers were formerly SunPower executives.

Documents

Mt. San Antonio Gardens HVAC & Solar Analyses