Monday, March 24, 2008

Pool report, part 3 - What are our options?

1) Summer Operations Only
2) Replace with:

a) improved air-supported bubble
b) “conventional” Butler-type building*
c) “green house” with retractable panels*
d) transparent thin film, wire/air supported
e) non-conventional, sky-lighted and insulated*


*will require dehumidification

Dave Gavin
Energy Commission

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

From earlier comments on the history of the pool let it be know of the following. Yes the cost of energy has risen greater than anyone expected 10 years ago when the planning of the pool took place. However for the record let it be noted that the referendum was passed as presented that the facility will be built as a indoor and outdoor facility. The bubble was voted on and the plan was to use this bubble until it could no longer be used. That meant until it "wore out". The life expectancy was at least 15 years with the possibility of more. (do you know if that has changed). So replacing the bubble until that time would go against what the voters voted for. To get the original vote passed it was a very hard sell and the vote was very close.
The board and the park and rec do not really have the pulse of the community. a number of people don't care to use the pool nor really don't care what happens to it.You know the numbers of the people that use it and the revenue generated. Most people don't care but become concerned when the discussion of cost appears. The non using public to this day still believe the "bubble" is the cause of the leaks in the front lobby and the locker rooms. The public really doesn't know that the moisture in the pool area over the years was a result of faculty blowers. Too much heat not enough heat etc. It appears the blowers are working fine. to be continued.

Anonymous said...

want a decisive vote:

Tell us what year-round alternative has the lowest net lifecycle cost (debt service plus energy use @est. 2010-2015 prices).

Could we for one do the smart thing, not just the easy thing?

Bill said...

The debt service to pay for the renovations would be paid from energy savings. So in actuality there would not be a tax increase to fix the pool.

Anonymous said...

I'm not looking for voodoo economics. Let's be ultraconservative in projecting cost savings and revenue and anticipate hyperinflation in construction costs.

Wishful thinking got us the bubble

Bill said...

It is not voodoo economics, the idea has been done and results are solid. This approach has been done for pools, hotels, industry and schools. The savings are measured in real dollars.

Anonymous said...

Here's where I'm coming from. The pool was sold as self-supporting. It is a $400K loss leader now. Oil is now $100/barrel

I presume if oil gets to $200 it will lose far more money.

On the other hand, if oil goes to $60/barrel financing the renovation on energy savings costs is illusory....at least until energy costs rise again.

Let's just presume things will cost money and spend wisely over the long haul

Bill said...

Even at $60 barrel the economics are there to do an energy retrofit. The biggest loss at the pool is the blower at 30,000 cfm that runs 24/7 when the bubble is up. Add tot hat for just about every second the blower runs the heater coil has to run and that is what causes the high natural gas demand. It would like leaving your windows open and running your furnace and get your house to 65 degrees. Replace the bubble with a greenhouse structure and install a hvac system with dehumidification and the energy costs are reduced by 50-70%. No different than insulating a house and going to a more efficient furnace. You are correct, things will cost more in the future and we should what is right, so the many different options should be evaluated and a long term cost/benefit analysis should be done on each. The data will tell us what to do.