Laboratories for the 21st Century:

Case Studies

Patrick Corkery/PIX14916
Case Study Index
Laboratory Type
✔ Wet lab
❑
✔ Dry lab
❑
❑ Clean room
Construction Type
✔ New
❑
❑ Retrofit
Type of Operation
✔ Research/development
❑
❑ Manufacturing
❑ Teaching
✔ Chemistry
❑
❑ Biology
❑ Electronics
Service Option
❑ Suspended ceiling
✔ Utility service corridor
❑ N ational R enewable E nergy L aboratory,
S cience and Technology Facility,
❑ Interstitial space
Featured Technologies
✔ Fume hoods

G olden , C olorado
❑
✔ Controls
❑
✔ Mechanical systems
❑
✔ Electrical loads
❑
✔ Water conservation
❑
✔ Renewables
❑
Introduction
✔ Sustainable design/
❑ The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has added
planning a light-filled, energy-efficient new research facility to its campus in Golden, Colorado. Completed
❑ On-site generation in August 2006, NREL’s 71,347-ft2 Science and Technology Facility (S&TF) houses nine laboratories
✔ Daylighting
❑
✔ Building commissioning for advanced materials synthesis, analysis, characterization, and support, as well as a 10,170-ft2
❑
process development and integration laboratory (PDIL).
Other Topics
❑ Diversity factor As a Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) partner, NREL set aggressive goals for energy
❑ Carbon trading savings, daylighting, and achieving a LEED Gold rating (through the U.S. Green Building Council’s
❑ Selling concepts to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program). The S&TF received a LEED Platinum
stakeholders rating, the first federal building to achieve Platinum and one of the first laboratory buildings in the
✔ Design process
❑
world to achieve Platinum. Through the Labs21 program, staff worked with the design team to
LEED Rating
✔ Platinum
❑
❑ Gold
❑ Silver United States U.S. Department of Energy
❑ Certified Environmental Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Protection Agency Federal Energy Management Program
2 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY

analyze, design, review, and implement the energy-saving .........

features highlighted in this case study. Staff also coordi- “I applaud the thinking that went into it and the
nated documentation for the LEED submittal, oversaw an
flexibility and adaptability of the design that emerged.”
analysis to validate the project’s energy simulation, and
Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman
prepared documentation to showcase the project through
design awards and other venues. .........
The S&TF laboratories are designed to accelerate
renewable energy process and manufacturing research
for both near-term technologies, such as thin-film solar Project Description
cells, and next-generation technologies, such as organic The S&TF is a two-story, 71,347-gross ft2 (44,800 net
and nanostructured solar cells. Energy costs for this ft2) laboratory building completed in 2006 at a total
building are estimated through computer simulation construction cost of $22.7 million ($318/gross ft2) and
to be 41% lower than those of a comparable facility a total project cost of $29.8 million. The architect and the
designed to American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection engi-
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard neers were the SmithGroup of Phoenix, Arizona. Civil
90.1 (1999), for an estimated savings of $96,000 per year. Engineering was provided by Martin-Martin; landscape
The estimated annual energy savings is 10,648 million design was by Wenk Landscape Architects. The structural
Btu. The cost of the Labs21 contribution to the project engineer was Paul Koehler Leffler, and the general con-
was $67,000 over 3 years. Given that the Labs21 pro­ tractor was M.A. Mortenson.
gram had a significant influence on the outcome of this The ground floor includes laboratories, office space,
project, we estimate that at least 30% of the expected and a lobby. The second floor houses laboratories and
annual savings can be attributed to Labs21 support. includes the PDIL. An elevated bridge connects the second
This represents a 2.3-year simple payback. Energy- floor service corridor to the adjacent 117,000-gross ft2 Solar
saving features include these: Energy Research Facility (SERF). The third level houses
• Variable-air-volume supply and exhaust systems for the bulk of the S&TF’s mechanical support functions,
all laboratory and office areas including laboratory exhaust fans. The exterior consists
primarily of precast concrete panels and metal panels at
• Fan-coil units in laboratory spaces
the entry that complement the exterior of the adjacent
• Low-flow chemical hoods and laminar-flow fume hoods building.
• Staged exhaust fans brought on according to building Seven “interaction spaces” encourage informal dis-
exhaust needs cussions among researchers. Each space features seating,
a white board, access to a local area computer network,
• Exhaust air energy recovery and process cooling water
and views to open space outside.
energy recovery
The building’s centerpiece is the 10,170-ft2 PDIL.
• Indirect/direct evaporative cooling It was designed to accommodate a new class of deposi-
• Expansion of the central plant in the adjacent building tion, processing, analysis, and characterization tools (see
with a high-efficiency chiller and boiler to serve the Figure 1). These flexible tools can be integrated into proto-
S&TF load type processes for developing thin-film and nanoscale
devices and low-cost, high-throughput manufacturing
• Underfloor air-distribution system in the office area processes that are not yet available in the United States.
with demand-based ventilation controls using carbon The processes can be applied to thin-film photovoltaics
dioxide detection and monitoring (PV), hydrogen nanostructures for production and stor-
• 100% daylighting in office areas, good daylighting in age, thin-film window coatings, and solid-state lighting.
laboratories, and lighting control throughout. The intent is to reduce the risk and cost to industry
associated with these processes.
This case study is one in a series produced by Labs21,
The PDIL allows researchers to move samples
a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection
between large tools under vacuum, which prevents the
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
samples from coming in contact with airborne contami-
geared toward architects and engineers who are familiar
nants. Researchers can bring samples under vacuum to
with laboratory buildings. This program encourages the
the lab in mobile transport pods.
design, construction, and operation of safe, sustainable,
high-performance laboratories.
 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY 3

organized along a service corridor

Brent Nelson, NREL/PIX14840

nearly identical to that of the second
floor. Both floor plans are shown in
Figure 2.
The rectangular PDIL is centrally
located on the second-floor ground
level (because the site slopes) and
along support laboratories to improve
operational efficiency and make future
expansions easier. Large second-floor
labs required the largest available floor
plate, a direct connection to the SERF
for service, and proximity to the PDIL.
Vibrations are controlled by means of a
structural slab beneath the PDIL. Both
floors feature daylighting and exterior
Figure 1. Interior of the PDIL views.
The office area is a structurally
L ayout and Design separate one-story module east and south of the labs.
Laboratory spaces were designed around a common Advantages of this design include lower cost; enhanced
module to provide flexibility and distribution of utilities safety due to separation of staff from labs using hazardous
and services. The selected planning module is 10 ft x 27 ft. materials; and allowing daylight to enter offices from both
Structural bays allow an appropriate span for the second the south and north sides.
floor to reduce vibrations. Designers arranged building Utility Servicing
spaces to reflect the relationship of labs to one another,
Laboratories are organized along a central service
to offices, and to support spaces. The need to use toxic
corridor that supports them on each floor, like a spine
and flammable materials in some labs also influenced the
supporting limbs. The service corridor is required to
plan. A space breakdown is shown in Table 1.
distribute hazardous production materials (HPM) to
On the first level of the two-story laboratory portion the labs because the S&TF is classified as high hazard
of the building are labs that are more sensitive to vibration occupancy 5 (H5) under the International Building Code
and noise and need to be darkened. Lab spaces were (IBC). The service corridor accommodates gas lines, water
lines, exhaust and supply ductwork, electrical, and signal
Ta b l e 1 . S c i e n c e a n d Te c h n o l og y system distribution to the back of the labs. The front of
Fa c i l i t y S p a c e B r e a k d o w n each lab includes access to an exit corridor that links to
the rest of the building. As shown in Figure 2, the service
(Net ft2, unless otherwise noted) corridor includes notched areas for heat- and noise-
Function Size (ft2) Percentage (1) producing equipment. An in-floor utility trench allows
Offices and office support areas 10,425 23% this equipment to be connected to equipment inside the
labs.
Laboratory support space 22,933 51%
Laboratory space 11,442 26% Design Approach
Total net ft2 44,800 100% The building was conceptually designed and pro-
Other (2) 26,547 posed for funding in 2001. As a first step in the design
process, NREL research staff helped determine space
Total gross ft2 71,347
requirements for each lab. A design charrette held in 2001
Notes: resulted in a recommendation to redesign the original
1. The percentage shows a breakdown of net ft2 only. Net ft2 equals one-story building as a two-story facility for greater
gross ft2 minus “other.” sustainability, a smaller building footprint, and more
2. “Other” includes circulation, toilets, stairs, elevator shafts, efficient heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
mechanical and electrical rooms and shafts, and structural (HVAC). The two-story conceptual design was completed
elements like columns. The net-to-gross-ft2 ratio is 63% .
in early 2002.
4 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY

Nor
th

First Floor

Office
Laboratory
Service Corridor
(connects via bridge to another lab building
on the second floor)

Second Floor

Figure 2. Floor plans

A request for proposals (RFP) was then issued to • Demonstrated experience in designing to project
select the architectural and engineering (A/E) firm. The technical requirements
RFP included six selection criteria; the first two were • Demonstrated capability to design to the project budget
weighted the highest and the last four were weighted
equally: • Total price of design services for this procurement

• Past experience in integrating safety into a building • Demonstrated ability to incorporate “green building
design technologies” as defined in the LEED rating system, into
design solutions
 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY 5

• Demonstrated ability to develop an architectural image to have two-speed blower motor control. When the sash
consistent with the project site and the owner’s identity. is closed and no product is being tested, this signals the
blower motor to operate at low speed and the VAV system
After a nationwide search, the selection team chose
to operate at a low set point volume, reducing airflow by
the SmithGroup team. The final design was completed in
40%. The ASHRAE 110 test verified the hoods’ contain-
2003, and construction began in early 2005.
ment performance.
Te c h n o l o g i e s U s e d Exhaust fans. The building’s six exhaust stacks are on
S i te the southeast side. Each is connected to a dedicated direct-
drive 20,000-cfm exhaust fan. Fans are staged on and off
The S&TF is oriented along an east-west axis so that
to maintain an exhaust plenum negative static pressure set
windows on the north and south facades can provide
point of approximately 1.5 in. water column. The fans are
natural lighting. A butterfly roof over the office module
started in sequence until they exceed the set point; then,
collects stormwater and directs it to detention ponds
the bypass damper in the exhaust plenum modulates open
with xeriscape land­scaping. The construction contractor
to maintain the set point pressure as the system reacts to
recycled more than 80% of the construction waste by
varying lab conditions. When the bypass damper modu-
weight. In addition, a portion of the excavation soils were
lates to 80% fully open, an exhaust fan shuts down and
retained and used to restore a previously disturbed por-
the bypass damper modulates toward closed to maintain
tion of the site.
the negative set point pressure. This saves considerable
Per the Labs21 Environmental Performance energy in comparison to running a full-capacity fan and
Criteria (the basis for the LEED Application Guide for large bypass damper in part-load conditions.
Laboratories), NREL contracted for an exhaust effluent
Fan coils. Fan coil units provide heating and cooling
study using wind tunnel modeling to define the impact of
directly to laboratory spaces, nearly eliminating the need
emissions from exhaust sources at the building intake and
for inefficient reheating systems. Fan coils allow the venti-
other sensitive locations. The study suggested minimum
lation system to supply only the tempered air required
acceptable design parameters in terms of exhaust stack
for minimum ventilation (1 cfm/ft2) and makeup air for
height, exit velocity, volume flow and exhaust, and loca-
exhaust devices. Fan coils provide cooling for areas with
tion of intake air. The recommendations were used in
high internal heat gain.
designing the air intake location and exhaust system.
Energy recovery. A runaround-coil system with an
E nerg y Efficiency
estimated 63% sensible effectiveness reduces the heating
The energy efficiency features of the S&TF were and cooling requirements associated with conditioning
designed to provide a 41% percent reduction in energy ventilation air in labs. The system recovers energy from
cost in comparison to a standard laboratory building. exhaust air to precondition supply air and uses waste heat
These features include a variable-air-volume (VAV) supply from the process water loop to preheat ventilation air. This
and exhaust system, variable-frequency motor drives, also provides “free” cooling for process cooling water
efficient fume hoods and fans, energy recovery, efficient when the outside temperature is below 60°F, for savings
heating and cooling equipment, and underfloor air in both chiller energy and cooling tower water.
distribution.
Efficient heating and cooling. The S&TF uses a high-
VAV Supply and exhaust system requirements. The efficiency condensing boiler and variable-speed chiller,
minimum occupied air flow is 1 cubic foot per minute indirect evaporative cooling, and a heat exchanger that
(1 cfm)/ft2 as required by IBC H5 occupancy. The VAV allows cooling water to bypass chillers and be cooled
system allows more supply air as needed for fume hoods directly by the cooling tower. Direct evaporative cooling
and other exhaust devices. cools offices and provides cooling and humidity control
The facility’s chemical fume hoods feature an auto- in labs. A modulating indirect gas-fired heating section in
matic sash closer to ensure that the sash is open no more makeup air units heats makeup air for labs and reduces
than 18 in. when operating. An ASHRAE 110 test verified hot water piping needs. The condensing boiler provides
that the hood is performing to the recommended level by heat for offices and fan coil units in labs.
ANSI Z9.5-2003. Underfloor air distribution. The offices are condi-
In laminar-flow hoods, HEPA-filtered air is intro- tioned by a VAV underfloor air distribution system. It
duced to protect the product and air is drawn in through provides fan energy savings and increases the number
the sash to protect the user. Laminar-flow hoods are a big of hours when the economizer and evaporative cooling
energy user at NREL, so the S&TF hoods were designed
6 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY

Table 2. Simple Payback Calculations Modeling Energ y Performance

Measure Incremental Savings Payback NREL conducted a detailed energy modeling study to compare
Cost ($) ($/yr) Years the S&TF’s building energy performance with that of three
reference case buildings: the LEED 2.1/ASHRAE 90.1-1999
VAV only $300,000 $92,120 3.3
energy cost budget; Labs21 Modeling Guidelines (www.
Energy & recovery $80,000 $36,487 2.2 labs21century.gov/pdf/ashrae_v1_508.pdf); and the LEED 2.2/
Lab supplementary cooling $150,000 $14,873 10.1 ASHRAE 90.1-2004, Appendix G, Performance Rating Method.
& raised primary supply air Energy cost savings for this building were 41% in comparison
temperature to the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 baseline, 46% in comparison to the
Labs21 Modeling Guildelines, and 28% in comparison to the
Overhangs & glazing * $4,400 NA
ASHRAE 90.1-2004 baseline. The big difference in the 2004
Lighting power density * $5,694 NA baseline is the inclusion of plug loads.
Daylight controls $10,000 $4,111 2.4
Office underfloor air & $20,000 $3,103 6.4 system from the vendor for 20 years. The estimated
evaporative cooling annual energy production of the PV system is
Chiller plant upgrades $33,000 $12,607 2.6 132,000 kWh,which is 4.6% of the annual electrical
Tower free cooling $60,000 $6,754 8.9 energy use at S&TF.

Process CHW for preheating $48,000 $4,752 10.1 Wa t e r E f f i c i e n cy

Lab AHU evaporative section $20,000 $3,758 5.3 In addition to using a stormwater detention
systemforirrigationwater,thebuildingcontainslow-water-
Fan pressure drops * $19,064 NA
consuming fixtures, such as ultra-low-flow (0.5 gallon
Fan staging $37,500 $4,691 8.0 per flush) urinals. The cooling towers operate at
Boiler & DHW improvements $24,000 $8,972 2.7 6 cycles of concentration, reducing makeup water
requirements in comparison to those of a tower operat-
Note: NREL identified first-cost premiums using actual estimates and ing at more conventional cycles of concentration (e.g.,
RSMeans data.
2 or 3). The cycles of concentration represents the rela-
AHU = air-handling unit; CHW = commercial hot water;
DHW = domestic hot water; ER = energy recovery. tionship between the concentration of dissolved solids
* The added first cost could not be broken out separately. in the bleed-off to the concentration in makeup water.
Increasing the cycles of concentration of the tower
from 3 to 6 reduces make-up water consumption by
can be used by raising the supply air temperature. It also a factor of 4.
minimizes overhead ductwork.
Indoor Environmental Quality
Simple payback calculations for these and other efficien-
The goal was to provide 100% daylighting in first-
cy features are shown in Table 2. Note the savings resulting
floor office spaces between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
from VAV is included in the base case building.
and for daylighting to meet 50% of the labs’ lighting
R enewable Energ y needs. The daylighting system includes north- and
The S&TF was designed to be “solar ready” by orienting south-facing windows and clerestories coupled with
the building facing south and consolidating all stacks on the automated lighting controls, which dim or turn off
penthouse, leaving large flat open roof areas for solar (for electric lights as needed. The performance of the
more information on solar ready buildings see: http://www. daylighting system was simulated to verify that the
nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46078.pdf). The roof was designed performance objectives would be met. Figure 4 shows
for the 3 pounds/square foot load of the future solar system. clerestory windows in an office area.
NREL did not have the budget to include a solar electric (PV)
system as part of the original construction. NREL was able to Commissioning
add a 94 kW grid-tied roof mounted PV system (Figure 3) NREL contracted directly with a third-party com-
under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) (for more infor- missioning authority to work with the A/E project
mation on PPAs see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/ manager, construction contractor team, and NREL
financing/power_purchase_agreements.html). Under project manager to commission the building during
this agreement, NREL pays no money during installation, each of these phases: Schematic Design and Design
but instead purchases the electricity generated by the PV Development, Construction Documents, Construction
 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY 7
Brent Nelson/NREL/PIX17091

Figure 3. S&TF PV system looking west with the NREL SERF laboratory building in the background.

and Acceptance, and Warranty.

Craig Randock, AIA, RNL Design/PIX14841

Commission­ing at the Construction

and Acceptance phase includes
startup and testing of selected
equipment. For the Warranty
phase, it includes coordinating
required seasonal or deferred test-
ing and performance evaluations
and reviewing the building
10 months after occupancy.
The commissioning authority
evaluated the central automation
systems; laboratory air supply
and exhaust systems and controls;
life safety systems; the toxic gas
monitoring system; central plant
systems; process and specialty
gas systems, including hazardous
production materials; all HVAC
equipment; process cooling water
systems, deionized water, back-up
power systems, lighting control
systems, and domestic hot water
Figure 4. S&TF interior office area systems. This cost approximately
 8 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY

0.5% of the total construction budget, or about $1.60/gross ventilation air. Calculations are based on nameplate values
ft2 of building area. and assumed full loads. They follow Labs21 benchmark
procedures and are included for comparison to other
Bu i l d i n g M e t r i c s Labs21 data sets. The simulation model predicts loads
A comparison between S&TF’s energy use based on based on a schedule and the typical 1 cfm/ft2 of lab venti-
design calculations and an hourly computer simulation lation rather than design capacities and is assumed to be
model is shown in Table 3. The biggest difference between more accurate.
the two methods for calculating energy use is the value for

Table 3 . B u i l d i n g M e t r i c s f o r t h e S &TF
System Key Design Parameters Annual Energy Usage Annual Energy (based on simulation) (1) Measured Measured
(based on design data (Apr 07 to (Apr 08 to
calculations) Mar 08) Mar 09)

Ventilation (sum Supply= 1.44 W/cfm 25.6 kWh/gross ft2 (4) 9.6 kWh/gross ft2 10.1 kWh/ft2 10.5 kWh/ft2
of wattage of Exhaust = 0.75 W/cfm
all the supply Total =1.09 W/cfm(2)
and the exhaust 1.4 cfm/gross ft2; 2.2 cfm/net ft2,
fans) and 3.15 cfm/gross ft2 of labs (3)

Cooling plant 400 tons 7.3 kWh/gross ft2 (5) 4.8 kWh/gross ft2 13.0 kWh/ft2 11.9 kWh/ft2
0.449 kW/ton

Lighting Varies from 1.45 W/gross ft2 in 2.3 kWh/gross ft2 (6) 2.3 kWh/gross ft2
labs to 0.86 W/ft2 in open offices 15.7 kWh/ft2 (10) 17.6 kWh/ft2 (10)
Process/Plug 4.70 average W/gross ft2; range 19.8 kWh/gross ft2 (7) 21.3 kWh/gross ft2
varies from 0-10 W/gross ft2

Heating plant 95% efficient at 140°F supply 91.9 kBtu/gross ft2 (as per 91.9 kBtu/gross ft2 (as per simulation) 136.7 kBtu/ft2 132.7 kBtu/ft2
temperature simulation)

Total electricity only (8) 55.0 kWh/gross ft2/yr 38.1 kWh/gross ft2/yr 38.3 kWh/ft2 40 kWh/ft2
electricity only (8) 187.6 kBtu/gross ft2 131.5 kBtu/gross ft2 132.4 kBtu/ft2 136.4 kBtu/ft2
279.5 kBtu/gross ft2/yr for 223.4 kBtu/gross ft2 for electricity and gas 269.0 kBtu/ft2 269.0 kBtu/ft2
electricity and gas
$3.33/gross ft2 estimated cost for
electricity and gas (9)
Notes:
1. Simulation study done by Architectural Energy Corporation, Energy Modeling Analysis and Baseline Performance Comparison for NREL Science and Technology
Facility, June 10, 2006.
2. 180 hp (supply) plus 100 hp (exhaust) x 746 W/hp/93,000 cfm (supply) + 100,000 cfm (exhaust) = 1.09 W/cfm.
3. 100,000 cfm (total cfm based on exhaust)/44,800 net ft2 = 2.2 cfm/net ft2; 100,000 cfm/71,347 gross ft2 = 1.4 cfm/gross ft2; 100,000 cfm/31,700 net ft2 of labs =
3.15 cfm/net ft2 of labs.
4. 0.75 W/cfm x 100,000 cfm/gross ft2 (exhaust) + 93,000 cfm/gross ft2 x 1.44 W/cfm (supply)/71,347 ft2 x 8760 hours/1000 = 25.6 kWh/gross ft2 (40.6 kWh/net ft2.)
5. 0.449 kW/ton x 400 tons x 2890 hours/71,347 gross ft2 = 7.27 kWh/gross ft2 (assumes cooling runs 33% of the hours in a year).
6. 1.11 W/gross ft2 (weighted average) x 2080 hours/1000 = 2.3 kWh/gross ft2. (In other case studies, it was assumed that lights are on 87.2 hours/week. In this case,
because of the aggressive daylighting strategy, the assumption is that lights are on 40 hours per week.)
7. 4.70 W/gross ft2 (weighted average) x 0.80 x 5256 hours/1000 = 19.78 kWh/gross ft2. (The lab power density ranges from 0-10 W/ft2 and the average office power
density is 1.0 W/ft2. (Assumes that 80% of all equipment is operating 60% of the hours in a year.)
8. Estimated data are presented in site Btu (1 kWh = 3412 Btu). To convert to source Btu, multiply site Btu for electricity by 3. Note: Golden, CO, has approx. 6020 Base
65°F heating degree-days and 679 Base 65°F cooling degree-days (based on Boulder, CO, weather data).
9. 2005 utility rate information: natural gas at $0.75/therm plus a $75.00 monthly charge; electricity at 0.029 per kWh plus $13.76/kW (summer) and $12.52/kW
(winter) plus $130.00/month service charge. Cost estimate based on simulation.
10. Lighting and Process/Plug energy are measured together.
 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY 9

M e a s u r e m e n t a n d E va l u a t i o n plant operation, and recalibrating the energy model based

on the latest information gathered. NREL expects the pro-
Ap p r o a c h
cess/plug loads to continue to grow and the HVAC ener-
Continuous metering and monitoring equipment will
gy use to decrease with further optimization. The PV
measure various systems through the life of the building.
system will offset a portion of the electrical energy use.
Mechanical systems monitored include constant and vari-
The S&TF saves significant amounts of energy com-
able motor loads, variable-frequency drive operations,
pared to a standard lab building. A Standard 90.1-2004,
chiller efficiency at variable loads (kW/ton), cooling load,
Appendix G, Performance Rating Method, building locat-
air and water economizer and heat recovery cycles, air
ed in Golden, Colo., would be expected to have an annual
distribution static pressures, ventilation air volumes, and
energy consumption of 361 kBtu/ft2. The actual annual
boiler efficiency.
energy use of the S&TF is 24% less, 269 kBtu/ft2 (See
Electrical systems are measured by 9 electric sub­
the S&TF Annual Energy Use table below). NREL will
meters. The meters will identify 4 types of load in the
continue to monitor and document the building’s
S&TF including 1) lighting, 2) lab process load, 3) office performance so others can learn from this experience.
load, and 4) building load. Domestic water and natural
gas usage is also metered. Summar y
The central building automation system provides NREL partnered with Labs21 to make the S&TF a
measured or calculated values for mechanical systems. model laboratory for the future. The S&TF incorporates
It can also monitor some equipment and show trends over many energy-efficient and sustainable design features,
time. Advanced electric meters record electrical energy, such as VAV, exhaust fans in sequence, fan coil units,
demand, and power quality. Data are stored at the remote energy recovery, efficient heating and cooling, underfloor
meter computer and can be accessed through the Internet. air distribution in offices, day­lighting, water-saving strate-
gies for irrigation, and process cooling. The S&TF saves
Co n cl u s i o ns — S & T F E n e r g y U se significant amounts of energy and water and provides
Measured annual energy use for the S&TF for April a superior work environment for employees.
2008 to March 2009 were obtained and compared to the
measured data from the previous year (April 2007 to Acknowledgements
March 2008). The total electric and gas use is 269.0 kBtu/ This case study would not have been possible
ft2 for both years of measured data and the ventilation and without the energy modeling analysis done by Fred
heating plant energy use are comparable for both years. Porter of Architectural Energy Corporation. The study
However, the cooling plant energy decreases 8% while was written by Nancy Carlisle and Otto Van Geet, the
the lighting and process/plug loads increases 11% in energy use was analyzed by James Salasovich and Anna
2008/2009. The reason the cooling plant energy decreased Hoenmans, NREL, and reviewed by Matt Graham,
in 2008/2009 is that there were more hours of free cooling DOE Golden Field Office; Paul Mathew, Ph.D.,
and the summer was considerably cooler than the previ- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and Sheila
ous year. The increase in lighting and process/plug loads Hayter, P.E., and Eric Telesmanich, NREL. Paula Pitchford
is attributed to the lab spaces being more utilized. was the editor and Susan Sczepanski the graphic artist
The measured annual energy use is 17% higher than (both of NREL).
predicted by the simulation. This result is not unusual
because the simulation assumes optimized operation of
HVAC systems, and the HVAC systems actual operation
has not been optimized. The discrepancy in heating
energy between the metered data and the energy model
may be explained in part by controls that act differently
in actual operation than in the energy model. These partic-
ularly include the evaporative humidification and heat
recovery. Furthermore, both heating and cooling could be
under predicted in the energy model if airflows are simu-
lated as being less than the actual airflows. Future plans
include compiling zone airflow trends, detailed metering
and analysis of the heat recovery system, optimize cooling
10 L A B S F O R T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U RY

For More Information

On the NREL Science and Technology Facility: Nancy Carlisle, A.I.A.
Otto Van Geet, P.E. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd.
1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, CO 80401
Golden, CO 80401 303-384-7509
303-384-7369 [email protected]
[email protected]
See also www.labs21century.gov/toolkit/bp_guide.htm
On Laboratories for the 21st Century: for these best practice guides:
Will Lintner, P.E. Daylighting in Laboratories
U.S. Department of Energy Minimizing Reheat Energy Use in Laboratories
Federal Energy Management Program
1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Modeling Exhaust Dispersion for Specifying Exhaust/
Intake Designs
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-3120 Water Efficiency for Laboratories
[email protected]

Daniel Amon, P.E.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202-564-7509
[email protected]

Laboratories for the 21st Century

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Administration and Resources Management
www.labs21century.gov

In partnership with the

U.S. Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Bringing you a prosperous future where energy
is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/

Federal Energy Management Program

www.eere.energy.gov/femp

Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL), a national laboratory of the U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy; NREL is operated by the Alliance for
Sustainable Energy, LLC.
This publication is subject to Government rights.

DOE/GO-102010-3015
Revised June 2010

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least

50% wastepaper, including 10% postconsumer waste.