Energy Efficiency: A Look at the Class of ’78 Life Sciences Building

At last Friday’s Jones Seminar, David Madigan, vice president of van Zelm Engineers, gave a presentation on the energy–efficient structure of the newly developed Class of ’78 Life Sciences Building. The building, whose design and construction was led by Madigan’s firm, is expected to receive a platinum LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) award, signifying its overwhelmingly positive environmental impact.

Madigan began his presentation with an analysis of oil and electricity use at Dartmouth over the past decade. While the College stands firmly behind its decision to reduce its carbon footprint, the development of new buildings and repeatedly cold winters have caused oil costs to increase by over 500% and electricity by 132%. Current projections also imply that annual oil usage will only grow larger in the future. Nonetheless, when the proposition for a new life sciences center was brought to Madigan’s firm several years ago, the College and the firm agreed to create the most efficient laboratory structure in North America, and they did.

Traditional laboratory buildings are, simply put, energy hogs. As Madigan stated, “laboratories will typically consume five times as much energy as a classroom or office building.” Therefore, in an attempt to create the most efficient structure, Dartmouth defined standards in every quantifiable area of building development and used those metrics as the basis for design. Madigan’s firm then used energy monitoring software with the parameters. Dartmouth proposed a building structure that would have such a highly positive environmental impact and yet be cost efficient to implement as well.

Madigan’s firm identified several factors that cause the greatest energy consumption for laboratory structures, and developed technologies to be implemented in the Class of ’78 Life Sciences Building that would allow for a significant increase in efficiency in these areas. The following list includes four significant energy–use problems and their complementing technological solutions:

1.   Minimize ventilation rates: Laboratory buildings tend to circulate air from the outside, bring it into the lab, and then exhaust it immediately due to fear of contamination. Using a new system called Aircuity, the Life Sciences Building reduces airflow when sensors determine the air to be sufficiently “clean,” which recent studies have shown is the case approximately 98% of daily laboratory operation time. In this way, the need to heat and humidify air brought in from the outside is greatly reduced.

2.   High performance envelope: Much of the heat produced in large buildings is lost through weak insulation in the walls and roof. By using a continuous Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) insulation, a three–inch deep foam covers and seals all potential cracks, allowing for a higher thermal energy retention rate.

3.   Controlled lighting: The Life Sciences Building makes use of new technology called the Neutron Echo System, which contains a complex network of timers and sensors that continuously modulate lighting levels in the space to keep it consistent throughout the day. Thereby, electricity use during daylight hours is significantly less than at night, while the light experienced by the building’s occupants is exactly the same. 

4.   Heat recovery: The building’s Enthalpy Wheel draws thermal energy from exhaust steam and reuses 65–80% of the latent heat to warm the building. This device alone saves the College over $600,000 per year.

Ultimately, the Class of ’78 Life Sciences Building is an innovative and environmental achievement for both Madigan’s firm and the College. The building’s future looks towards solar panel roofing for hot water heating and an overall predicted 54.7% reduction in energy use compared to an average building of the same size. Only time will tell what new inventive and energy–efficient technologies will come to dominate the College’s landscape.