13 In the field of retrofitting technology, innovative solutions are scarce because most retrofit technologies, like facade upgrades, HVAC improvements, or transitioning to LED lighting, are already widely available. Model The building energy model described in the integrated model, is used to evaluate the campus energy demands for the three given decarbonization scenarios. For these representations, buildings are divided into 12 representative archetypes, by dominant use-type (as is currently defined by MIT Facilities of lab-, classroom/office -, residential-, and support-dominant), and 3 age groups (pre-1945, 1945-1980, 1980-2015). In each scenario, retrofit “packages” are developed for each archetype with an estimated cost and timeline normalized by floor, façade, window, or roof area. Buildings are assumed to be renovated at a rate of 4% (necessary to retrofit all buildings by 2050), with buildings selected based on a “priority” score (related to age and past campus data). If a building is selected for a retrofit, the retrofit packages are implemented all at once (no phasing). As described above, scenarios are based on allocating different scales of retrofits (rather than an alteration of retrofit rate), and are implemented by dynamically editing the campus model EnergyPlus IDF files for groups of building archetypes. Key Recommendations To reduce building emissions in a significant way and make the most out of the (unavoidable) high financial burden of conducting retrofits at scale, we suggest that lab buildings are focused on (see Sec. Energy Efficient Labs), and that, while more disruptive, deep retrofits are far more worthwhile to invest in. In the interest of reducing demand in a sustainable and financially prudent way, we propose that MIT focus not on the low hanging fruit of shallow retrofits first, but in building the capacity within the university to (1) better understand the current status of building energy use on campus, and (2) maximize efficiencies in the retrofit process through comprehensive planning. Thus, we suggest the implementation of a Buildings Energy Team through an expansion of the existing MIT Facilities teams. For example, the current teams do not have the resources to consider energy usage before and after building upgrades and have not been able to quantify the benefits that come from retrofits. We think that if more focus is put on these benefits (ecological, monetary, health, etc.), “disruptive” interventions may be more accepted. This team could contribute to identifying and planning for efficient retrofit installations at scale and identify operational efficiencies that may not require physical energy conservation measures. While we have identified that building energy retrofits are not perceived as innovative, accomplishing a large-scale retrofit plan in an efficient manner with special consideration for operations and disruption would be truly market leading. Finally, the team could spearhead building emissions reduction education and outreach across MIT, which we believe is critical to ensuring MIT’s building retrofit investments are both accepted and celebrated internally and externally.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA2MzQ5MA==