[Equest-users] EnergyPlus--Quest Competitor or Natural Evolution

[Carol Gardner]

I agree with Glenn. I have always regretted the split that occurred 
between the eQUEST team and the EnergyPlus team that occurred lo so many 
years ago now. We users have paid for that the most. Just think what 
tools would be available right now if all those experts were still 
working together.....

William cited operations as the reason for green buildings not 
performing as they should; Dan thinks it is the tool's fault. I think 
we, as energy modelers, better look in the mirror to see who is at 
fault. There are a lot of untrained new people entering this field who 
think that by possessing an engineering degree, or some other advanced 
degree, they should be able to jump right in and do this work. I have 
been doing it for 25 years now using a variety of tools and I can tell 
you that any tool I use is only as good as my ability to make it work, 
and I am still learning how to do that.

It is not correct to assume that the funding for eQUEST is insignificant 
just because federal $ are no longer available for it. As far as I know 
eQUEST is funded at a level that the current eQUEST team is hard pressed 
to spend because there are not enough of them doing the work as well as 
not enough hours in the day. Also, they are constantly making changes 
and improvement which address the past concerns that people had about 
the algorithms, heat balance methodology, etc.

Each team, the EnergyPlus team and the eQUEST team. is composed of 
highly educated and trained professionals that are capable of developing 
great tools for our use. Each one will eventually function as well as a 
user can make it function. And, that again is the biggest problem. The 
user, not the tool. We can wish for a model to do this or to do that but 
as long as there are users out there, you know who you are, who are 
untrained and inexperienced, bad results will be obtained using whatever 
tool is used.

Carol Gardner PE




Glenn Haynes wrote:
>
> Mr. Koran has made some good points on the power of government funding 
> to assure that EnergyPlus will eventually overtake DOE2 and eQuest. 
> But this doesn’t guarantee a better simulation code. Doe2 has the 
> backing of decades of usage and testing by millions of experienced 
> building simulation modelers worldwide. It has undergone thousands of 
> corrections and improvements during its lifetime, and has evolved to 
> the point that it has been widely accepted and used as the benchmark 
> by which other simulation codes are tested and proven.
>
> So my advice is let’s not be hasty in writing off such a powerful 
> legacy and jumping to something newer just because it is receiving 
> more funding at this point in time. Wasn’t DOE2 conceived and 
> developed under federal (DOE) funding decades ago? Do we need to start 
> over with a new baby? We can all point out weaknesses in a tool that 
> we are all intimately familiar with, but have we spent enough time and 
> effort to look as carefully and critically at EnergyPlus? Not yet, 
> because we can’t until EnergyPlus (or any other newer software) has 
> undergone as much usage and scrutiny as DOE2 and its derivitives.
>
> No matter how much money is spent on a newer code, I will personally 
> put more faith and confidence in the more tried and proven code. That 
> kind of confidence can’t be bought; it can only develop over a long 
> time. When EnergyPlus has been proven to my satisfaction to be better 
> than DOE2, then I will be happy to switch.
>
> Remember McIntosh computers and their windows GUI? Has Microsoft 
> created a better product? I don’t think so, but we have been unhappily 
> forced to switch because most other people have, and it was all due to 
> money and its power, not a better product. As grass roots users of 
> DOE2, let’s stick together and demand that EnergyPlus be proven to our 
> satisfaction to be at least as good as DOE2 before we switch. After 
> all, we pay our government to serve our needs, not to use our money to 
> dictate our choices.
>
> Glenn Haynes, PE
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Bill
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:00 PM
> *To:* Dan.Monaghan at bentley.com; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] EnergyPlus--Quest Competitor or Natural 
> Evolution
>
> I work mostly in the existing buildings (non- or pre-"green) markets, 
> but to the extent green buildings don't live up to the promises is 
> largely due to operaitons, not design. Many green buildings are more 
> complex, and since even more traditional buildings typically have 
> significantly sub-optimal operations, it is only logical that green 
> buildings will suffer at least as much when compared to 
> expectations/simulation results.
>
> Some interesting documentation of green building performance is 
> available at www.newbuildings.org <http://www.newbuildings.org>.
>
> As far as Energy Plus and eQuest, I only have experience with DOE-2 
> and eQuest. EnergyPlus should be superior since it was built using the 
> best of DOE-2 and BLAST. IIRC, it was moving away from a 
> transfer-function-based simulation to a heat balance-based simulation. 
> This should also help it to be superior in some circumstances. DOE-2 
> derivative simulation tools are generally weak at simulating 
> suboptimal operations, and are very poor at simulating certain 
> controls improvements or retrocommissioning measures. I don't know how 
> much better EnergyPlus is in this regard.
>
> At any rate, because of federal funding, and that some (many/most?) 
> federal projects and organizations will only allow EnergyPlus, it 
> seems certain that EnergyPlus is the future. My use of DOE-2 dates 
> back to before there were convenient interfaces and we dealt only with 
> BDL and user-defined functions, and we needed the stacks of 
> documentation to know what we were doing. I certainly believe that as 
> more interfaces for EnergyPlus are developed, more students come out 
> of school with knowledge of EnergyPlus, and more of us learn 
> EnergyPlus, it will see greater and greater use.
>
> William E. Koran, P.E.
> Senior Engineer
> Q u E S T
> Quantum Energy Services and Technologies
> Web: www.quest-world.com <http://www.quest-world.com/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Dan.Monaghan at bentley.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:05 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] EnergyPlus--Quest Competitor or Natural 
> Evolution
>
> Thanks to all the people who responded to my question.
>
> A few of you ask me to post the result from my very unscientific survey.
>
> The list is split 50%, 50% in their opinion that EnergyPlus will 
> become a natural transition to eQuest.
>
> The basic sentiment is that eQuest is recognized to be less capable, 
> but faster and easier to use.
>
> However, almost all who responded recognized that as the demand for 
> high-performance buildings grows, the ability to/ //accurately/ 
> predict energy consumption, C02 emissions, occupant comfort and life 
> cycle costs are going to become more important. I read this to mean 
> that the demand for detailed analysis tools like EnergyPuls is likely 
> to increase.
>
> Someone asked me why Bentley cares. We believe that there’s a hole in 
> the U.S. energy analysis/simulation market. We believe, as this survey 
> indicates, that the tools available to U.S. designers seem to fall 
> into two camps. Tools that are easy-to-use, but inaccurate/incomplete. 
> Or, tools that are precise, but difficult to use and slow.
>
> Unfortunately, because of this we see:
>
> 1. Many “green” building don’t live up to the promises
>
> 2. Robust energy simulation is typically reserved for “special” 
> projects, or certain project types.
>
> 3. Accurate energy analysis is typically siloed, as oppose to 
> integrated into the design process
>
> As the leader in building engineering and analysis software or mission 
> is “sustaining the worlds infrastructure”. As such we’re working on 
> solving this problem, www.bentley.com/eps <http://www.bentley.com/eps>.
>
> *Dan Monaghan | Global Marketing Manager
> Building Performance Group*
>
> *Bentley Systems, Incorporated*
>
> *Phone*: +1-410-207-5501| *Skype*: dmonaghan.skype
> *E-mail*: dan.monaghan at bentley.com 
> <mailto:christine.byrne at bentley.com>* **| URL:* www.bentley.com 
> <http://www.bentley.com>
> *Address*: Bentley | 40 Dunvegan Rd. | Baltimore| MD | 21228 | USA
>
> Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.54/2056 - Release Date: 04/13/09 05:51:00
>
>