Non-potable river water vs. cooling tower

Katie Anthony

LEEDuser Basic Member

11 thumbs up

March 27, 2012

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?

Post a reply

Tristan Roberts

Representative

Vermont House of Representatives

LEEDuser Expert

7780 thumbs up

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 20:25

Katie, I can't speak to the likelihood of this approach being accepted, but I would say it's worth a shot.

Susan Walter

HDR

LEEDuser Expert

894 thumbs up

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 20:34

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 Director

L GEES 智利捷达

LEEDuser Basic Member

1 thumbs up

Mon, 10/14/2013 - 12:50

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.