A comparative analysis of energy conservation using schools with differing energy measure

Purpose of the study. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which, if any, traditional and optimal energy conservation measures contribute to serve as forces in reducing school operating costs and expenditures. The study was concerned with determining the differences in specific energy conservation measures in schools categorized as traditionally or optimally equipped and assessing the differences in annual BTU usage and energy costs per square foot in these schools. The study was also concerned with the construction and retrofit costs of optimally and traditionally equipped schools.;Procedure. Data were gathered from eight optimally and traditionally equipped subject schools located in the Dallas suburban districts of Mesquite and Garland and from interviews held with school district personnel and energy engineers in the private sector. The data were collected and recorded in a comparative analysis.;Results. The data revealed substantial differences in specific features of the traditionally and optimally equipped schools' energy conservation measures concerning building envelopes, electrical, and mechanical systems. The BTU usage and energy costs per square foot per year ranged from 16 to 31 percent and from 7 to 32 percent less in the optimally equipped schools. Results indicated that the optimally equipped subject school's total contract cost was 1 percent higher than that of the traditionally equipped school. The data also indicated that retrofitting an existing building with optimal energy conservation measures has a simple payback of one to two years for the majority of measures.;Conclusions. Based on the results from this study, the following conclusions were reached: (1) The assumption that a wide variety of energy conservation measures are used in public schools is valid. (2) The utilization of highly efficient energy conservation measures resulted in lowered BTU usage and energy costs per square foot. (3) The perception that the implementation of optimal energy conservation measures costs significantly more than traditional energy conservation measures is invalid. (4) Retrofitting an existing building with optimal energy conservation measures is cost effective. (5) Thermal storage, for new construction or for retrofit, was the single most cost effective optimal energy conservation measure in the subject schools. (6) Without proper maintenance, all conservation systems, regardless of type, will be totally defeated.