Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />19 <br />Another scenario considered limiting the district energy system to the Town Center, shown in purple in <br />Figure 9. This is the area of RCC with the highest building density. This reduces the required trench length <br />from approximately 45,000 feet to just over 10,000 feet. As a result, the estimated total distribution cost <br />decreases to approximately $9.5 million. <br />5. Energy Modeling Scenarios <br />Ever-Green and LHB developed energy models for different scenarios and analyzed them for GHG emissions <br />and life cycle cost over 30 years. These models provide insight into the advantages and disadvantages of <br />different energy supply options for Rice Creek Commons. <br />5.1 Scenario Comparison <br />5.1.1. BUSINESS-AS-USUAL <br />In a business-as-usual scenario, all buildings within RCC adhere to the current Minnesota Energy Code <br />(ASHRAE 90.1-2019) and are based on the baseline set in Section 3: Building Strategies. Both natural gas <br />and electricity serve these buildings, with Xcel Energy as the sole electricity provider. Gas-fired heating <br />systems, including forced air furnaces, rooftop units, and air handling units, are assumed to be in place. <br />5.1.2. SCENARIO 1: DISTRICT ENERGY – ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT <br />This scenario involves high-performance buildings, as set in Section 3: Building Strategies, that are entirely <br />electric. These buildings are integrated into a district energy network, including all single-family homes and <br />townhomes. Water-to-water heat pumps or water source variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems would <br />provide heating and cooling to buildings. <br />5.1.3. SCENARIO 2: DISTRICT ENERGY – TOWN CENTER <br />Similar to Scenario 1: District Energy – Entire Development, this scenario includes high-performance <br />buildings, as set in Section 3: Building Strategies, that are entirely electric. However, this scenario <br />concentrates on a district energy network in the Town Center, which is the densest area of the site and <br />would serve multi-family housing, senior living, light industrial, and commercial spaces in the Town Center. <br />Water-source heat pumps or water-source VRF systems would provide heating and cooling for the Town <br />Center buildings. The single-family homes and townhomes on the rest of the site would not be served by <br />district energy, and are assumed to use geothermal wellfields at each individual building site with water- <br />source heat pumps or variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems. <br />5.1.4. SCENARIO 3: DECENTRALIZED GEOTHERMAL <br />Scenario 3 does not have a district energy system. Instead, each building has its own electric heating and <br />cooling equipment. The scenario assumes the same high-performance electric buildings as Scenario 1 and 2. <br />Heating and cooling would be provided at each individual building site by geothermal ground source with <br />water-source heat pumps or variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems. <br />While there is sufficient land area to accommodate geothermal wellfields connected to a district energy <br />system, the district energy system can leverage large green spaces, playing fields, and parking lots to meet <br />energy demand. In practice, a playing field with an underlying wellfield on the north end of RCC could serve <br />buildings on the south end. However, without a district energy system, individual buildings, especially in