Friday, December 17, 2010
12/13 Green Team Meeting Data UPDATED
I realize that the data I shared on Monday is a bit dense and not exactly very readable, and that some may not have checked the blog to comment on it. So, I tried a new interface for the slides, with more explanation throughout the graphics.
Also, after looking through the presentation, I would appreciate if you click on the survey link at the end and fill out your preferences and additional thoughts.
Thanks for the discussion!
Monday, December 13, 2010
12/13 Green Team Meeting (temporary post!)
Green Team 2010 12 13
Here is a summary of the energy audit results. As you can see, no single site is the highest energy consumer when you consider the results by square foot, or by number of visitors. Thus, the blue highlighted colors show the sites that have several hits for being one of the top energy consumers, while the green highlights show sites with only one hit for high energy use.
In our schedule and plan for our sustainability audit, we will complete a GHG assessment for all the sites at an institutional level, which means each site will have the basic energy, waste, water, and paper calculations. However, for energy, which is typically the largest and more complicated consumption area, there can be more detailed assessment of what specifically is causing higher consumption - heating, cooling, lighting, or plug loads. Thus, these specific energy issues is where the RFPs for building commissioners or lighting consultants come into play. Based on our budget, we can likely select 7-9 sites for these detailed studies with these consultants. All the other sites will still be included in the assessment, and recommendations will still be generated for each.
The data shows that the blue highlighted sites, the History Center, Mill City Museum, Sibley House, Split Rock, and Lindbergh House should most likely be included in the detailed study with consultants. However, the green highlighted sites, including Fort Ridgely, North West Company Fur Post, Forest History Center, Ramsey house, and Fort Snelling may also be included since they are in the middle range of the consumption levels. While choosing based on strictly numbers is easiest, these 5 green highlighted sites have numbers that are close to each other, and numbers can be off for any number of reasons. Thus, I think we should select these middle-range energy consumption sites by our own knowledge of the context and issues. So, I hoped the Green Team meeting today would generate some ideas about which of the 5 green highlighted sites should be studied further along with the highest consuming sites. Again, we are looking for a total of 7-9 sites, based on budget for the consultants and professional services. Also, these selections would reflect the largest chunk of energy used by the Society, which means any recommendations we do enact on these sites could potentially have the largest budget impacts.
SO, Please comment on this blog post, which is temporary until our MHS blog has the commenting and slide show capabilities set up. Remember to type in your name if you do not have a gmail or eblogger login (it is NOT required to create one for commenting). Alternately, if you wish to comment privately, feel free to email me. But, I think this topic is best as a group discussion.
Here is a summary of the energy audit results. As you can see, no single site is the highest energy consumer when you consider the results by square foot, or by number of visitors. Thus, the blue highlighted colors show the sites that have several hits for being one of the top energy consumers, while the green highlights show sites with only one hit for high energy use.
In our schedule and plan for our sustainability audit, we will complete a GHG assessment for all the sites at an institutional level, which means each site will have the basic energy, waste, water, and paper calculations. However, for energy, which is typically the largest and more complicated consumption area, there can be more detailed assessment of what specifically is causing higher consumption - heating, cooling, lighting, or plug loads. Thus, these specific energy issues is where the RFPs for building commissioners or lighting consultants come into play. Based on our budget, we can likely select 7-9 sites for these detailed studies with these consultants. All the other sites will still be included in the assessment, and recommendations will still be generated for each.
The data shows that the blue highlighted sites, the History Center, Mill City Museum, Sibley House, Split Rock, and Lindbergh House should most likely be included in the detailed study with consultants. However, the green highlighted sites, including Fort Ridgely, North West Company Fur Post, Forest History Center, Ramsey house, and Fort Snelling may also be included since they are in the middle range of the consumption levels. While choosing based on strictly numbers is easiest, these 5 green highlighted sites have numbers that are close to each other, and numbers can be off for any number of reasons. Thus, I think we should select these middle-range energy consumption sites by our own knowledge of the context and issues. So, I hoped the Green Team meeting today would generate some ideas about which of the 5 green highlighted sites should be studied further along with the highest consuming sites. Again, we are looking for a total of 7-9 sites, based on budget for the consultants and professional services. Also, these selections would reflect the largest chunk of energy used by the Society, which means any recommendations we do enact on these sites could potentially have the largest budget impacts.
SO, Please comment on this blog post, which is temporary until our MHS blog has the commenting and slide show capabilities set up. Remember to type in your name if you do not have a gmail or eblogger login (it is NOT required to create one for commenting). Alternately, if you wish to comment privately, feel free to email me. But, I think this topic is best as a group discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)