Scofield Attempts to Clarify Facts About Lewis Center

To the Editors:

It is impossible to address all the issues raised by Professor Orr’s Nov. 30 letter in the allotted space. A more detailed response is posted at http://www.oberlin.edu/~physics/Scofield/Essays/LongResponse.htm. Here I address a few of the issues raised.
Professor Orr says that, “During the prime months from March through October, sunlight provided 62 percent of total building energy use.” This information is about as useful as a stockbroker telling you that Enron stock increased in value for 300 of the last 365 days. If you spent $450,000 to install a PV array on the Cox Administration building you would achieve similar results. Dominant energy consumption for buildings in our climate occurs during winter months. For these four months (Nov. 2000 – Feb. 2001) the Lewis Center actually consumed 20 percent more energy than the eight months mentioned, and during that time its PV array produced roughly 6 percent of the energy consumed.
Professor Orr suggests that there are just one or two correctable engineering flaws. History suggests that Orr, whose degree is in International Relations, does not have an adequate understanding of the building’s mechanical design. The flaws are numerous and not easily solved. The building contains not one but two 112kW electric boilers, two electric air heaters (10kW and 16kW), and an electric hot water heater. All 23 of its heat pumps are inappropriate for a geothermal heating system and will likely need to be replaced. (In that event they will join 21 other heat pumps that waste away in College storage from an earlier design mistake.) Roughly 50 percent of the building’s supply air escapes without energy recovery and the building HVAC system is, by design, unable to save energy when users open windows or a sensor indicates a room is unoccupied. The list goes on. The College has only begun to address the first of these problems.
Professor Orr says that steam from a coal-fired boiler was inconsistent with the goal to rely exclusively on renewable energy. He further suggests that a fuel cell is consistent with this goal. The first assertion raises troubling questions about the project history, while the second is simply incorrect — see the longer essay.
With regard to energy used by the living machine — of course it should be included in the building’s energy consumption. To do otherwise, while counting its square footage and claiming that the building processes its own waste, is intellectually dishonest.
And to claim that the excessive energy use is associated with un-anticipated building use is simply disingenuous. To lower their projected energy use the design team adopted a contracted building schedule. (What a novel idea — save energy by not using the building!) But their true expectation was disclosed by architect Kevin Burke in the Apr/May 2000 Environmental Design and Construction magazine. “It’s a popular building, and will most likely be used seven days a week,” he said. “We even envision weddings there in the future.”
Professor Orr suggests that a reporter misread his slide — plausible, but inconsistent with the facts. A video tape shows that Orr misread his own slide saying. “This is the past three months, and I could add a bar here for the fourth month. The light blue here is what we exported, and what we exported back to the grid is about 25 percent more than we used.” Orr’s data shows that the PV-Array produced just 4 percent (not 25 percent) more energy than the building consumed. If transformer losses are included the result flips, with consumption exceeding production by 6 percent.
I can affirm many of the goals for this building and many of the ideas it represents. But the actual building is hardly a new benchmark for educational architecture! Much can be learned from this building project — things to be emulated and things to be avoided.
Many readers may conclude that I am against sustainable development and/or have a grudge against Professor Orr. Neither is the case. Nor am I primarily concerned with this building’s poor mechanical design — with sufficient time and money many of the problems will eventually be addressed. No, my primary concern is with the hypocrisy and misrepresentation surrounding this building project. Since fall 1997 this building, its mechanical design, and its potential energy performance have been misrepresented repeatedly to the public and the Oberlin community. I believe that many folks will share these concerns when the facts surrounding this project become known.

–John Scofield
Professor of physics