U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification Progra
Green Building Technologies
The U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verifi-
cation (ETV) Program, through cooperative agree-
ments with non-profit testing laboratories, has
verified nine green building technologies1: two
fuel cells and six microturbine/combined heat and
power (CHP) technologies that generate energy at
the point of use, and one ground-source heat pump
for onsite water heating. ETV has also signed con-
tracts with three vendors to verify mold resistant
wallboard and recently updated the protocol for
biological and aerosol testing of ventilation air
cleaners, in preparation for testing in this area.
Green building is the "practice of creating healthier
and more resource efficient models of construc-
tion, renovation, operation, maintenance, and
demolition" (U.S. EPA, 2006c). In the United
States, buildings account for 39% of total energy
use, 12% of total water consumption, 68% of total
energy consumption, and 38% of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions. They also consume enormous
amounts of raw material and energy during con-
struction and generate a large amount of waste dur-
ing demolition (U.S. EPA, 2006d). Thus, the ETV-
verified green building technologies could provide
significant environmental, economic, and human
health benefits.
Table 1. Verified Green Building Energy Technologies
Microturbines and CHP Systems
Mariah Energy Corporation Heat PlusPower™
System*
Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems IR PowerWorks™
70 kW Microturbine System*
Honeywell Power Systems, Inc. Parallon® 75 kW
Turbogenerator
Honeywell Power Systems, Inc. Parallon® 75 kW
Turbogenerator with CO Emissions Control
Capstone Turbine Corporation 30 kW Microturbine
System*
Capstone Turbine Corporation 60 kW Microturbine
CHP System*
Fuel Cells
Plug Power SU1 Fuel Cell System
UTC Fuel Cells, LLC PC25™ Fuel Cell"
Ground-Source
Heat Pump Water Heating System
ECR Technologies, Inc. EarthLinked® Water
Heating System
Electricity Generating
Capacity (kW) '
30
70
75
75
30
60
Electricity Generating
Capacity (kW) "
6
200
Rated Performance&
Heating Capacity
36,000 Btu and
60 gallons/hour
* Includes heat recovery for CHP
B UTC Fuel Cells, LLC was known as International Fuel Cells Corporation
when it was verified in 1 998. The technology has since been renamed as
the PureCell™ 200.
kW = kilowatts, Btu = British thermal unit
Distributed Power Generation at a Glance
EPA estimates that, in 2002, the United States emitted
almost 6.4 billion tons of CO2 and nearly 22 million
tons of nitrogen oxide (NOX). Electricity generation
accounted for 39% of the total CO2 emissions and 21%
of the total NOX emissions. Other pollutants emitted
during electricity generation include carbon monoxide
(CO) and total hydrocarbons (THC). Each of these
emissions can have significant environmental and
health effects. CO2 is a greenhouse gas linked to global
climate change. CO, THC, and the various compounds
in the NOX family cause a wide variety of environ-
mental and health-related impacts (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
Fuels cells and microturbines use hydrogen and natural
gas to generate electricity, and ground sourced heat
pumps transfer heat between the earth and buildings for
heating/cooling or hot water heating. In addition to the
efficiencies passed on by the technologies themselves,
power transmission losses, which can be in the range of
4.7% to 7.8%, can be avoided and reliance on electric-
ity from large electric utility plants can be reduced.
When well-matched to a facility's needs in a properly
designed combined heat and power (CHP) application,
net fuel consumption and overall emissions can also be
reduced. Fuel cells and microturbines can also operate
using biogas from animal waste, etc., reducing natural
resource consumption (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the performance data for the
verified technologies. Verification reports and state-
ments are located at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/
vt-ggt.html under advanced energy and green buildings/
energy efficient categories. These reports fully describe
the verification tests and results. Collaborators included
the State of Colorado, the New York State Energy Re-
search and Development Authority (NYSERDA), New
York City, and the EPA CHP Partnership.
Verified fuel cell
The ETV Program operates largely as a public-private partnership through competitive cooperative agreements with non-profit research institutes. The
program provides objective quality-assured data on the performance of commercial-ready technologies. ETV does not endorse the purchase or sale of any
products and services mentioned in this document.
-------
Table 2. Performance of Verified Energy Technologies
Parameters
Fuel Cells
Microturbines
Power Production*
Electrical efficiency
Potential thermal
efficiency
Potential total
system efficiency
23.8% to 38.0%
56.9%e
93.8°/cP
20.4% to 26.2%
7.2%to47.2%c
33.4%to71.8%c
Emissions Rates
C02, Ibs/kWhD
NOX, Ibs/kWho
1 .31 to 1 .66
NA
1.34 to 3.90
4.67x10-5(0
4.48x10-3
A At full load, under normal operation.
B The potential for heat recovery was verified in one of the three tests.
c For the four systems with heat recovery
Dlbs/kWh = pounds per kilowatt-hour
Source: U.S. EPA 2006b
Table 3. Performance of Verified Ground-Source Heat Pump Water
Heating System
Thermal
Water heating capacity*
- Low temperature short-term test
- Elevated temperature short-term test
351 00 + 1300 Btu/h
32300+ 11 00 Btu/h
Coefficient of Performance
Coefficient of performance
- Low temperature short-term test
- Elevated temperature short-term test
- Long-term in-service test8
Change in average system efficiency8-0
Change in electrical power consumption0-
3.58+ 0.12
2.7+ 0.1
4.43 + 0.09
3.00+0.07%
75 + 6%
Emissions
C02 emissions reductions, lbs/kWh°
NOx emission reductions, lbs/kWhc
1390
2.96
A Results are not adjusted to account for the average standby heat loss, 490 + 90
Btu/h.
B Coefficient of performance only looks at the performance of the device under
testing, while average system efficiency characterizes the performance of the
whole system.
c Long-term test result.
Source: Southern Research Institute, 2006.
References
Southern Research Institute, 2006. ETV Verification State-
ment: Ground-Source Heat Pump Water Heating System.
September.
U.S. EPA, 2007. Fact Sheet: Verification ofMicrobialRe-
sistant Building Materials - Gypsium Wallboard.
U.S. EPA, 2006b. ETV Case Studies: Demonstrating Pro-
gram Outcomes, Volume II. EPA/600/R-06/082. September.
(Primary source)
U.S. EPA, 2006c. Green Buildings. Last updated 17 Octo-
ber. http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/index.htm.
U.S. EPA, 2006d. Why Build Green. Last updated 17 Octo-
ber. http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/whybuild.htm.
Selected Outcomes of Verified Distributed
Energy Technologies
Available sales data indicate that a capacity of 28
megawatts (MW) of ETV-verified fuel cells and mi-
croturbines (in CHP applications) have been installed
in the United States since the verifications were com-
pleted. ETV estimates that these systems have:
• Reduced CO2 emissions by 53,000 tons per year
and NOX by 240 tons per year, with associated cli-
mate change, environmental, and health benefits.
• Increased utilization of renewable fuels resulting in
reductions in the consumption of natural resources.
(Note: Fuel cells that utilize anaerobic digester gas
are responsible for 2 MW of the capacity listed
above and 14,000 tons per year of the CO2 reduc-
tions.)
Assuming annual sales continue at the same rate as in
2005, ETV estimates the total installed capacity of
ETV-verified fuel cells should reach 89 MW in the
next five years, reducing CO2 by 191,000 tons per
year and NOX by 600 tons per year (U.S. EPA,
2006b).
Microbial Resistant Wallboard at a Glance
Approximately 90% of interior finished surfaces are
covered with gypsum products and 40% of the homes
in North America contain fungal growth on the gyp-
sum wallboard. Each year millions of tons of wall-
board are disposed of as scrap in landfills due to
mold. Mold may also pose a potential health risk to
sensitive populations, such as asthmatics
(www.epa.gov/asthma).
A number of microbial-resistant wallboards have
been introduced to the market that incorporate either
the removal of the microbial growth substrates or the
addition of the antimicrobial agents. ETV plans to
evaluate the performance of some of these products,
including their ability to support fungal (mold)
growth and resistance to moisture uptake (U.S. EPA,
2006a).
ETV Air Pollution Control Technology Center
Mike Kosusko, EPA Project Officer
kosusko.mike@epa.gov. Tel: (919) 541-2734
Andrew Trenholm, RTI International
atrenholm@rti.org, Tel: (919) 316-3742
ETV Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
David Kirchgessner, EPA Project Officer
kirchgessner.david@epa.gov, Tel: (919) 541-4021
Tim Hansen, Southern Research Institute
hansen@sri.org, Tel: (919) 806-3456
Microbial Resistant Building Materials
Timothy Dean, EPA Project Manager
dean.timothy@epa.gov, Tel: (919) 541-2304
Debbie Franke, RTI International
dlf@rti.org. Tel: (919) 541-6826
EPA/600/F-06/016
October 2006
------- |