The Molecular Foundry is a 95,700-sf multidisciplinary nanotechnology center funded by the Department of Energy and built by LBNL to provide investigators with world-class nano-scale research capabilities. Built into the side of a steep hill overlooking the San Francisco Bay Area, the six-story facility houses advanced biology, chemistry, and computational labs, as well as vibration sensitive Class 100/1000 cleanrooms. Some of the biggest energy and money savings at the Molecular Foundry were achieved by right-sizing the laboratory equipment. During the planning process, LBNL monitored the actual energy usage at three of the organization’s most recently completed laboratories and found that mechanical support equipment could be strategically reduced without hindering research capabilities. Standard chillers and air handlers were replaced with smaller high-efficiency units and reduced energy load by 35 percent, which resulted in considerable savings.

“By accurately assessing the energy demands of the intended programs and sizing equipment accordingly, we were able to generate $2.5 million in savings, which paid for every sustainable element in the project,” says Bill Diefenbach, a SmithGroup senior vice president and a leader of the firm’s national Science & Technology practice.

The NREL Science + Technology Facility is a 71,000-sf alternative energy research and development complex in the foothills west of Denver created to support the DOE’s goal of advancing solar and hydrogen energy technologies. SmithGroup used computer modeling software to develop solutions for the diverse programmatic needs of the facility. The building’s footprint was reduced by approximately 45,000 sf by creating a two-story structure, as opposed to the more sprawling single-story version that was originally conceived. The Science + Technology Facility, which is connected to the nearby Solar Energy Research Facility (SERF) by a sky bridge, has less than two-thirds the square footage of the SERF, yet more than 80 percent the useable laboratory space. Extensive use of natural daylighting and an advanced automated mechanical system reduced energy needs by more than 41 percent over a conventional lab.

“Safety and efficiency were key issues with the NREL facility. Because it is a hazardous materials processing facility, there is a mandated separation between the office areas and the laboratory. The office area is essentially a one-story building at grade level, so there is some real economy in the building,” says Victor Cardona, SmithGroup’s in-house leader for laboratory programming and planning.

Both projects worked in conjunction with Labs21—a program sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency that adapts LEED building strategies to the design of labs—and exceeded initial expectations for efficiency. Berkeley’s Molecular Foundry set out to achieve a silver LEED rating and is anticipated to receive a gold, while the Science + Technology Facility targeted a gold rating only to become the first platinum-rated federal building in the country. The buildings also both received the 2006 Federal Energy Saver Showcase Award, which recognizes federal projects that demonstrate innovative energy strategies.

Innovations in Efficiency

Reducing energy consumption was a major planning parameter for both facilities. According to Diefenbach, lab facilities consume an average of five times more energy than the average office building.

“SmithGroup’s philosophy is to think of a building as an ecosystem. We look at the interrelationships of the systems and bring a balanced approach to the design,” says Cardona.

The Science + Technology Facility was built on a greenfield site with minimal disruption to the natural terrain. More than 11 percent of the building materials were made from recycled materials and 27 percent of the construction materials were manufactured within 500 miles of the site, minimizing environmental impact by reducing the amount of waste and vehicle emissions associated with transporting materials. The facility also uses innovative energy recovery and evaporative cooling systems in both the labs and offices.

“Because it is so dry in Denver, we were able to make great use of indirect and direct evaporative cooling in both the labs and the offices, which helped to increase overall efficiency quite a bit,” says Cardona.

Not to be outdone, the Molecular Foundry established itself as a model for sustainable lab design by installing half-gallon-per-minute hand-washing faucets; waterless urinals; and an electromagnetic water treatment system in the cooling towers that reduces water consumption and harmful chemicals. The facility also features low-emission carpet, paint, and adhesives, as well as renewable bamboo flooring and cabinetry in the interaction spaces. All natural vegetation was replaced at the conclusion of the project.

Lighting and Atmosphere

One of the major cost saving components of the Science + Technology Facility was the implementation of extensive daylighting combined with an automated lighting control system.

“The goal for this facility from the very beginning was that there would be 100 percent natural light, which meant no light bulbs turn on between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., 165 days of the year,” says Cardona.

SmithGroup designers used advanced computer modeling software to analyze light distribution and airflow throughout the facility. A sophisticated combination of clerestory windows, a Briese-Soleil sunshade, and horizontal sunshades provide 100 percent daylighting to office spaces and 50 percent of the lighting needs in the laboratories. An integrated automatic control system uses photovoltaic monitors to adjust light in accord with activity in a given area and wall switches are available for overriding the automated system.

“If there is not enough light in the work area, the system detects that and responds accordingly,” says Cardona.

Designers of the Molecular Foundry also used computer modeling to maximize daylighting, but the narrow profile and location between two existing buildings made this more challenging.

“We were able to achieve a lot of daylight penetrating through this very narrow building—only 24 feet deep to that central corridor—but alternatively, the building’s very narrow footprint limits some of its efficiency because there are more stairs, elevators, and shafts per square foot,” says Diefenbach.

Both facilities implemented highly-efficient solutions for airflow—the biggest consumer of energy in a lab facility.

The Molecular Foundry offices have a separate air handling system with operable windows in every office. Fume hoods are variable-air-volume with a combination of horizontal and vertical sashes. Fans and pumps use variable-frequency drives controlled with reset schedules to minimize energy use.

The Science + Technology Facility utilizes a raised floor with under-floor air-distribution systems in office areas and demand-based controls. While there is enough air to meet the ventilation rates required for safety, the ambient air is not cool enough for the laboratory space so designers installed fan coil units where air enters the room.

“Air can be provided at a higher temperature because it is next to the people. There is a thermostat every two stations or in every office area and that saves quite a bit of energy,” says Cardona.

Financial Decisions

While it’s clear that green buildings are better for the environment, the question at the end of the day is still: How much does sustainability cost?

“A lot of people will say that LEED certification doesn’t cost more, but they are only talking about construction costs. There are always soft costs that add slightly more to a sustainable project,” says Cardona.

There are three areas where LEED construction adds cost to a project: construction costs, soft costs, and the certification itself. Cardona estimates that hard construction costs for a LEED-certified building can increase from .6 percent to 3.5 percent for basic certification, all the way up to 11 percent for platinum certification. Application costs range between $2,200 (for facilities smaller than 55,000 sf) to $17,950 (larger than 500,000 sf). Soft costs—which include commissioning, energy modeling, and LEED documentation—can increase costs between 1.5 and 3.1 percent.

“With the NREL lab, the soft costs were about the same as the hard construction costs, which, combined, turned out to be approximately two percent of the total project,” says Cardona.

Comparative Lessons

Creating a budget for sustainability early in the project is an important part of the financial decision making process.

“We didn’t establish budgets early enough for sustainability so some of the elements did get cut out later on as a result,” says Diefenbach.

Both projects benefited considerably from implementing an integrated team approach to planning. Working with Labs21 helped both projects coordinate interaction of the design team, LEED documentation, and energy analysis. Having a clear understanding of the actual performance and size parameters of intended lab equipment is also essential to right-sizing a facility.

“One of the problems with using low-flow hoods is that they are all engineered differently and have different depths. So it is important to really understand the technology when specifying hoods,” says Cardona.

Extensive use of natural daylighting also proved to be successful in both facilities but, while designers can put considerable effort into developing systems, the occupants must be trained how to use them in order to get maximum efficiency from the features.

“Some of the biggest savings with the NREL facility came from the daylighting, but the system was so complex that it took the contractors two or three months to figure out how it works and it has taken the occupants six months to figure out how to use it. So it is really important to train staff how to use a system like this,” says Cardona.

By Johnathon Allen