Greg Kats Presentation Ifc

Greening O ur Built Wo rld
Greg Kats, Capital –E, May 2010

GEI Investment Po rtfo lio

JASPER WIND

Dummuies Windfarm Huntly Ltd. (UK)
Western Bio-Energy Ltd (UK)

Green
Wind Buildings &
Solar
Efficiency


Int ernat io nal Rat ing St andards – TO O LS


Scores are tallied for
different aspects of
efficiency and design
in appropriate
categories.
LEADERSHIP in
ENERGY and
For instance, LEED
ENVIRONMENTAL
assesses in detail:
DESIGN
1. Site Planning
A leading-edge
2. Water Management
system for certifying
3. Energy
DESIGN,
Management
CONSTRUCTION, &
4. Material Use
OPERATIONS
5. Indoor
of green buildings
Environmental
Air Quality
6. Innovation &
Design Process


Wentworth Commons - Chicago, IL

Carbon Dioxide Intensity and Per Capita CO2 Emissions -- 20 0 1
(Fossil Fuel Combustion O nly)
25.00

United States
20.00

Netherlands Canada Australia
Tons of CO2 per person

15.00
Belgium

California Denmark

10.00
Germany
Japan Austria
New
S. Korea
Italy Zealand
Switzerland
France
5.00

Mexico

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
intensity (tons of CO2 per 2000 US Dollar)


Scope 1 2, & 3 GHG Emissions
,
 Scope 1: Direct
 Scope 2: Electricity Indirect
 Scope 3: Other Indirect

Source: World Resources Institute


GHG Emission Reduction Potential by Sector

IPCC assessment of emission reduction potential in different sectors depending on
the carbon market price

Efficiency O ppo rtunities Increase


Study/ Bo o k Spo nso rs

 American Council On Renewable Energy
 American Institute of Architects
 American Public Health Association
 BOMA International
 Enterprise Community Partners
 Federation of American Scientists
 National Association of State Energy Officials
 National Association of Realtors
 Real Estate Roundtable
 US Green Building Council
 World Green Building Council


Co st o f Building Green

Additional cost to build green:
Evidence from 146 green buildings
60
# of buildings in data set

50 Median in the
Public
data set: <2%
misperception:
added cost
40 17% added cost*

30

20

10

0
1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10 %

11 %

12 %

13 %

15 %

16 %

17 %

18 %
9%
10

1

2

3

4

6

7

8
0-

1-

2-

3-

4-

5-

6-

7-

8-

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1
9-

*2007 opinion survey by World Business C ouncil for
Sustainable Development Range of reported premiums


Green Building Co st Premium

Green premium frequency by LEED level
number of buildings in data

90
80
70
60 certified
50
set

silver
40 gold
30 platinum
20
10
0
2%

4%

6%

8%

2%

4%

6%

8%
%
10
0-

2-

4-

6-

-1

-1

-1

-1
8-

10

12

14

16
range of reported premiums


G reen Building Benefit s:
Increased Rent , Sales & O ccupancy

LEED Certified
1st Quarter 2008 Non-LEED Offices Difference % Change

Occupancy rates 88% 92% 4% 5%

Rent ($/SF) $31 $42 $11 35%

Property value ($/SF) $267 $438 $171 64%

1st Quarter 2008 Non-Energy star Energy Star Offices Difference % Change

Occupancy Rates 88% 92% 4% 5%

Rent ($/SF) $28 $31 $3 11%

Sale Price ($/SF) $227 $288 $61 27%

Source: CoStar analysis, 2008


Co sts and Benefits
Costs and Benefits of Green Buildings:
Present value of 20 years of estimated impacts based on study data
set collected from recent green buildings
Green School Green Office
$12
increased building cost
$10
water savings
$8 direct energy savings
$/Sf

$6

$4
Additional benefits
$2 not estimated:
+Productivity and student
$0 performance
+Property Value impacts
t

t
nt

nt
+Indirect water systems
os

os
a

a
lc

lc
up

up impacts
a

a
cc

cc
on

on

+Brand
/o

/o
ti

ti
r

r
di

di
ne

ne

+Operations and
ad

ad
ow

ow

Maintenance savings
o

o
t

t

+Embodied energy savings
it

it
f

f
ne

ne
be

be


Costs and Benefits of Green Buildings: Present value of 20
years of estimated impacts based on study data set and
synthesis of relevant research*
Green School Green Office
$18 increased building cost

$16 health
water savings
$14
energy savings
$12
indirect energy savings
$10
$/Sf

employment
$8 emissions
$6
$4 Additional benefits not
estimated:
$2 +Productivity and student
$0 performance
+Property value impacts
t

t
y

y
an

an
t

t
os

os

+Indirect water systems
et

et
p

p
ci

ci
lc

lc
cu

cu
so

so
impacts
na

na
c

c
/o

/o
to

to
tio

tio

+Brand improvements
r

r
fit

fit
ne

ne
di

di
ne

ne
+Operations and
ad

ad
ow

ow
be

be

maintenance savings
to

to
fit

fit

+Embodied energy savings
ne

ne
be

be

*There is significantly greater uncertainty, and less consensus around
methodologies for estimating health and societal benefits.


Co mcast Building
Libert y Pro pe rt y Trust

Brand Impact o f Greening

Gr eening Impacts: Thr ee Sources of
Br and Equity

• Increased brand awareness (e.g., free media
exposure)
• Greater preference due to specific attributes
(e.g., better IEQ)
• General non-attribute preference (e.g.,
association with quality, lower risk)


Advanced energy savings and green premium:
18 buildings from the study data set

140% 14%

120% 12%
% energy use reduction

energy

% green premium
100% 10% savings
(yellow bars
80% 8% indicate the
use of
60% 6% onsite
renewables)
40% 4%
green
premium
20% 2%

0% 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Building ID #


Po t e nt ial Value O f 2 0 Ye ars O f CO 2 Re duc t io ns
in G re e n v. Co nve nt io nal Building s

Potential value of CO2 reduction in green offices

25
NPV of 20 yrs of reduction ($/sf)

20

15
Value of CO2 reduction
Indirect Energy price impact
Direct energy savings
10

5

0
$5 $30 $100
CO2 price pe r ton


Califo rnia Energ y Co st Driven By
St andard A / C

Standard Air Conditioner KW vs. TDV "total cost"

8 45

7 40

35
6

30
24 Hour Total TDV "Cost" = 72
5
KW Demand

TDV "Cost"
25
4
20

3
15

2
10

1 5

0 0
12:00 AM 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM

Time of Day
Standard KW TDV Weight


The Co st o f Meeting the Peak


Residential Lo ad


2 0 0 7 Pric e s, Sho wing Inc reme nt Sinc e 19 9 9


Climate Change is Happening


Rapid Cle ae nt e c h Inve st me nt Inc re ase Re quire d

180 Total Global New Clean Energy Investment Estimated Clean Energy Annual Investment to 2030,
160 US$ Billions
600
140 5% 542
Growth 515
Amounts ($ Billions)

500
120
4oc

Amounts ($ Billions)
59%
100 Growth 400 379 2.5oc

2oc
80
300
58%
60 Growth 229

200
40
68%
20 Growth 100

0
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
WEO 2008 - Reference WEO 2008 - 550ppm NEF Global Futures WEO 2008 - 450ppm
2008

~x c Equivalent increase in global temperature per scenario

Shortfall is potentially in excess of $350 billion per year

Source: IEA WEO 2008, New Energy Finance

Greg Kats, Capital –E, May 2010 25

G lo bal Cleant ech Invest ment Landscape


G lo bal Cleant ech St imulus Co mpo nent s


What is yo ur invest ment t hesis?

 Common view is: Big problem, one grid, national issues (security,
trade deficit, employment, global warming)
 So assumption is: centralized answer eg nuclear, coal CCS
 But slow, uncertain and v costly
 Real solution is opposite. Its decentralized, ie telephony and IT
 We have the technologies.. We need to scale and deploy them
 No silver bullet.. lots of technologies and niches


So me Dubio us Invest ment Theses

 Five 9s/ reliability.. microturbines, flywheels
 Benefits must be real and cheaper than alternatives
 Hydrogen/fuel cells..
 Infrastructure threshold
 Environmental math must work
 Ethanol.. Do the math on energy, politics of food to fuel

 Nanotechnology? Ca. $1 billion in 1000 firms. Over-
investment, exits?


Perfo rmance Co mpariso n

0.60 Tinted

0.50
Low-e2
0.40
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient

0.30 Tinted Low-e2
0.20 Reflective

0.10

0.00
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Visible Light Transmission


FERC REPO RT: Demand Respo nse Po t ent ial

source: FERC Assessment of Demand
Response & Advanced Metering 2009
assumptions: smart meters, dynamic pricing
default, enabling technologies


Ice Bear® Distributed Energy Storage
6 hour on peak resource

Insulates Utility Assets From Hot Weather Related Events

Low Capacity Factor High Capacity Factor


Lo w Co st & Po we r De nsit y : Bro adSt ar Wind
 The AeroCam Type I turbine is a low-noise, low vibration 12kW cycloidial turbine that can be deployed on a
rooftop or ground mounted at point of use

• Unlike many small wind systems, self-starting The AeroCam’s technological advantage is that it maximizes
aerodynamic lift forces that provide driving torque and power production

 Superior power density in relation to other distributed generation turbines and solar PV

 Power Density = Amount of Power Produced X Length of Turbine’s Frontal Cross Section

• Footprint of AeroCam turbine is 1/4 that of a same-sized solar array


CO 2 Impact

1990 Building CO2
Green Scenario Emissions Emissions
With Additional Policy Actions

BAU CO2 Emissions
3500

3000
Green - Efficiency
2500 and All Renewables
(50% offsite
MMT CO2

2000 reduction)
Green - Efficiency and
1500 Renewables (Full)

1000
Green - Greener
500 Conventional Energy
Supply
0
Obama Administration
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Goal


G reening = Wealt h and Jo bs Creat io n

NPV of Net Benefits of BAU and Green

$1,200

$1,000

$800
BAU
$600 Green
Billions

$400

$200

$0
Green NPV only Plus Plus Plus Plus
($200) Premium direct w ater health societal societal
energy energy CO2
($400)

Fo r mo re Info rmat io n:

• www.islandpress.org/Kats
• Greening Our Built World is on
Amazon (please write a 5 star
review!!!)
• www.goodenergies.com

Thank you


Greg Kats Presentation Ifc

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (13)

Similaire à Greg Kats Presentation Ifc

Similaire à Greg Kats Presentation Ifc (20)

Greg Kats Presentation Ifc