I am working on certification for a building that doesn't have cooling towers, but uses the adjacent river (non-potable water) for the similar purpose as a cooling tower. The system is not air cooled, it is indeed water cooled, but does not have the requisite towers. By foregoing cooling towers and using the river, the building saves thousands of gallons of potable water a year, which is the intent of this credit.
We plan to pursue the credit using an Alternative Compliance Path, but I'm curious if there are any thoughts out there on our eligibility for WEc4.2?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
April 6, 2012 - 4:25 pm
Katie, I can't speak to the likelihood of this approach being accepted, but I would say it's worth a shot.
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
April 6, 2012 - 4:34 pm
This is one I've been thinking about and I'm not sure either. If you do divert the river water, you should have protections against harming wildlife and the temperature of the discharge water. You may need to ensure that the return temperature is equal to the entering temperature to avoid shocking the river plants and animals. What happens to the contaminants from the cooling tower? How will you filter the incoming water? If you can account for the full cycle and protect the environment, you have a shot.
Oh, and do a little reading on the formation of the Riverkeepers and their work currently.
Lili Pan
LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Managing DirectorL GEES 智利捷达
1 thumbs up
October 14, 2013 - 8:50 am
Without having a cooling tower, these two credits are not eligible. We had a project using seawater for cooling and got rejected for these two credits.