[Bldg-rate] [BULK] Bldg-rate Digest, Vol 3, Issue 2
Janice K. Means, PE
means at ltu.edu
Fri Oct 10 13:43:53 PDT 2008
ASHRAE has recently started a group to benchmark high
performance buildings. I am not sure when the database
will be available.
Janice K. Means, PE
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:01:17 -0700
bldg-rate-request at lists.onebuilding.org wrote:
> Send Bldg-rate mailing list submissions to
> bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
>visit
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
>'help' to
> bldg-rate-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bldg-rate-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
>more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Bldg-rate digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles (and How to
>Get OverThem)
> (John E. Beeson)
> 2. Re: ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Purchased Chilled Water (Dan
>Russell)
> 3. Re: 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles (and How
>to Get OverThem)
> (Dean Sherwin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:54:31 -0400
>From: "John E. Beeson" <jbeeson at quinnevans.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-rate] 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles
>(and How to Get
> OverThem)
> To: "James V. Dirkes II P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>,
> <bldg-rate at onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID:
> <E4DA7CC709C64F418C163E11980245B90105B677 at a2xeon.quinnevans.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I forgot where this conversation went, but I finally
>make it through my
> EBN from Oct and saw this.
>
> It seems to add more thoughts to the discussion of
>benchmarking.
> "Regulations Demanding Actual Data Are Leapfrogging
>LEED":
> http://tinyurl.com/4k7r92
>
> This link will expire on October 16, 2008.
>
> QUINN EVANS | ARCHITECTS
> John E. Beeson, LEED AP
> d 734 926 0425
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On
>Behalf Of James V.
> Dirkes II P.E.
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:36 AM
> To: bldg-rate at onebuilding.org
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-rate] 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles
>(and How to Get
> OverThem)
>
> Dear Jason,
>
> I just read the article, and think it's well done. I
>especially like the
> quote,
>
> "Businesses have all kinds of accounting protocols to
>track cash and
> other assets; they might have armies of clerks that
>track $20 receipts
> for cabs and business lunches, but they have no clue
>about where their
> $20 million in annual energy expenditure goes. Energy is
>wealth, and
> fuel and power are forms of currency; if money is worth
>tracking, then
> so is energy."
>
> It appears that, compliments of rising energy costs and
>greater public
> awareness, the senior managers are starting to pay
>attention to their
> energy costs. Nonetheless, there's a long way to go.
>
> In my opinion, and thinking only about energy, deciding
>that energy is
> an important cost and competitiveness center is the
>first priority.
> Benchmarking is the THIRD priority; it only tells where
>you are today
> and there's a 90% likelihood that you're nowhere near
>optimum.
>
> The SECOND priority, therefore, should be determining
>and documenting
> the many details that drive energy use: schedules of
>operation,
> occupancy patterns, setpoints, special situations, etc.
> Finding this
> information is not always easy, because for many
>buildings, no one is
> paying attention to it, let alone documenting it.
>Another great insight
> in the article is "Many organizations' work habits and
>procedures have
> been in place for years and reflect shortcuts that trade
>energy for
> time." The "determining and documenting" step must
>include finding out
> WHY things are done, and not accepting "Because we've
>always done it
> that way" or "Because we had a problem 10 years ago".
>
> Once you know the status quo and understand the reasons
>driving it,
> solutions and opportunities almost always present
>themselves. Then the
> challenge is to determine how cost effective each
>opportunity is.
>
> An inherent challenge for those working with existing
>buildings, is that
> there is a specific HISTORY which has caused the energy
>use. If you
> don't know or understand the history, improvement
>becomes a "crap
> shoot". This is a very bad basis for management and
>customer relations,
> especially if the predicted savings never materialize.
> Actually, it
> seems that a whole different analysis toolset is
>required than is
> commonly used for brand new buildings (which, by
>definition, have NO
> history and for which you make a hundred "reasonable"
>assumptions).
> Energy Plus or any of the detailed analysis tools seems
>like (so to
> speak) a waste of energy, since the goal for an existing
>building is not
> primarily prediction of energy use using a theoretical
>weather pattern,
> but validation that you can match energy with actual
>weather and actual
> usage. I've just started experimenting with a tool
>called "EZ Sim"
> (www.ezsim.com), which is geared toward existing
>building analysis.
> It's too early to tell in detail, but it seems to have
>the right
> philosophy, which is something like "Use good
>information and logic to
> create a simplified model that matches actual weather
>well, and you'll
> understand the principal energy drivers. That will
>guide you toward the
> most effective solutions."
>
> Getting to that optimum is not always a cakewalk, but
>good results
> become achievable if you start with good information!
>
>
> The Building Performance Team
> James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
> 1631 Acacia Drive NW
> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
> 616 450 8653
>
>
>
> The Building Performance Team
> James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
> 1631 Acacia Drive NW
> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
> 616 450 8653
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On
>Behalf Of Jason
> Glazer
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:23 PM
> To: bldg-rate at onebuilding.org
> Subject: [Bldg-rate] 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles (and
>How to Get Over
> Them)
>
> I just came acrosA good article Leah B. Garris for
>BUILDINGS magazine.
>
> http://www.buildings.com/articles/detail.aspx?contentID=6208
>
> Is this a good summary of the problems and solutions?
>
> What other hurdles have people seen related to building
>energy
> benchmarking?
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin
>for
> onebuilding.org building performance mailing lists
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-rate mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
>message to
> BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-rate mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
>message to
> BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:33:26 -0600
>From: Dan Russell <danr at engineeringinc.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-rate] ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Purchased
>Chilled Water
> To: Andy Stone <andy.stone at bdsp.com>,
>"bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org"
> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>,
>"bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org"
> <bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID:
> <3D2DE15E12A62F49BEF3A442AD47F12D02CD02C690 at exchange.corporate.engineeringinc.org>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I have a similar scenario although mine is on the
>heating side. In my case the proposed building is using
>purchased heat via a low-temp geothermal water source
>that can be purchased from the local District. The
>baseline is required by App G to be VAV w/ reheat using
>design supply hot water temp = 180 deg F. The geothermal
>source is 110 deg, so it can't be used in the baseline
>scheme with standard hot water heating coils. This
>situation is different than Andy's in that using the
>geothermal source results in a tremendous cost savings to
>the owner. The proposed system will use Water-Water Heat
>Pumps to take about a 65 degree temperature drop out of
>the 110 deg source. The cost of the source is based on
>gallons usage, with no regard for heat transfer. The
>rate schedule is set to be equivalent to the cost of
>natural gas assuming a 20 deg temperature drop. So in
>essence, every degree the system can take out past 20 deg
>is free heating energy, which I'm hoping the modeling p
>
> rotocol allows credit for.
>
> So, I am interested if there is any insight out there on
>what to do when the baseline and proposed systems utilize
>separate utilities.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Russell, EIT
>
> [cid:image001.jpg at 01C92AB0.A5F61B70]
>
>From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf
>Of Andy Stone
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:49 AM
> To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Purchased Chilled
>Water
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm doing a LEED EAc1/ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G
>calculation where the building is served by a district
>cooling scheme and the basecase building is serviced by
>PTHP (ASHRAE 90.1 table G3.1.1A), i.e. the basecase
>building is uses electrically powered DX coils compared
>to purchased chilled water coils for the proposed
>building.
>
> The problem I have is that the price per kWh of chilled
>water is very close to the local price per kWh of
>electricity, which means that the cooling energy cost of
>the proposed building ends up much larger - for the PTHP
>system 1kWh of electricity gives something like 3kWh of
>cooling, but the same money only gets 1kWh of cooling
>from the district scheme, which makes it virtually
>impossible to get any LEED EAc1 credits. Has anyone else
>encountered this issue?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Andy
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
><http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org/attachments/20081010/4469d14c/attachment.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 7994 bytes
> Desc: image001.jpg
> URL:
><http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org/attachments/20081010/4469d14c/attachment-0001.jpg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:33:10 -0400
>From: Dean Sherwin <costman at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-rate] 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles
>(and How to Get
> OverThem)
> To: "John E. Beeson" <jbeeson at quinnevans.com>, "James V.
>Dirkes II
> P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>, <bldg-rate at onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID: <0K8J00ATB4J9AST3 at vms173003.mailsrvcs.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
>Format="flowed"
>
> Post-occupancy studies have been sorely lacking and
>certainly holding
> LEED's "feet to the fire" is necessary, if for no other
>reason than
> to calibrate both energy modeling and expectations for
>"green"
> building. However making utility bills public property
>is not quite
> the same thing; they will depend to some extent on
>useage patterns
> and occupant behavior. For example I could make my
>building
> apparently more efficient and desirable by making
>everyone wear fur
> coats for a month, prohibiting overtime and turning the
>thermostats
> down to 50 deg at 5.30.
> I do think testing that will show the likely consumption
>profile
> should be done on the completed building before LEED
>status is determined.
> I would have posted this comment to the article
>referenced but cannot
> afford to pay up for a Green Building subscription. Not
>sure if I am
> even approved for this list tho I get the posts.
> Dean Sherwin
>
> At 04:54 PM 10/9/2008, John E. Beeson wrote:
>
>>I forgot where this conversation went, but I finally make
>>it through my
>>EBN from Oct and saw this.
>>
>>It seems to add more thoughts to the discussion of
>>benchmarking.
>>"Regulations Demanding Actual Data Are Leapfrogging
>>LEED":
>>http://tinyurl.com/4k7r92
>>
>>This link will expire on October 16, 2008.
>>
>>QUINN EVANS | ARCHITECTS
>>John E. Beeson, LEED AP
>>d 734 926 0425
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>>[mailto:bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On
>>Behalf Of James V.
>>Dirkes II P.E.
>>Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:36 AM
>>To: bldg-rate at onebuilding.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bldg-rate] 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles
>>(and How to Get
>>OverThem)
>>
>>Dear Jason,
>>
>>I just read the article, and think it's well done. I
>>especially like the
>>quote,
>>
>>"Businesses have all kinds of accounting protocols to
>>track cash and
>>other assets; they might have armies of clerks that track
>>$20 receipts
>>for cabs and business lunches, but they have no clue
>>about where their
>>$20 million in annual energy expenditure goes. Energy is
>>wealth, and
>>fuel and power are forms of currency; if money is worth
>>tracking, then
>>so is energy."
>>
>>It appears that, compliments of rising energy costs and
>>greater public
>>awareness, the senior managers are starting to pay
>>attention to their
>>energy costs. Nonetheless, there's a long way to go.
>>
>>In my opinion, and thinking only about energy, deciding
>>that energy is
>>an important cost and competitiveness center is the first
>>priority.
>>Benchmarking is the THIRD priority; it only tells where
>>you are today
>>and there's a 90% likelihood that you're nowhere near
>>optimum.
>>
>>The SECOND priority, therefore, should be determining and
>>documenting
>>the many details that drive energy use: schedules of
>>operation,
>>occupancy patterns, setpoints, special situations, etc.
>> Finding this
>>information is not always easy, because for many
>>buildings, no one is
>>paying attention to it, let alone documenting it. Another
>>great insight
>>in the article is "Many organizations' work habits and
>>procedures have
>>been in place for years and reflect shortcuts that trade
>>energy for
>>time." The "determining and documenting" step must
>>include finding out
>>WHY things are done, and not accepting "Because we've
>>always done it
>>that way" or "Because we had a problem 10 years ago".
>>
>>Once you know the status quo and understand the reasons
>>driving it,
>>solutions and opportunities almost always present
>>themselves. Then the
>>challenge is to determine how cost effective each
>>opportunity is.
>>
>>An inherent challenge for those working with existing
>>buildings, is that
>>there is a specific HISTORY which has caused the energy
>>use. If you
>>don't know or understand the history, improvement becomes
>>a "crap
>>shoot". This is a very bad basis for management and
>>customer relations,
>>especially if the predicted savings never materialize.
>> Actually, it
>>seems that a whole different analysis toolset is required
>>than is
>>commonly used for brand new buildings (which, by
>>definition, have NO
>>history and for which you make a hundred "reasonable"
>>assumptions).
>>Energy Plus or any of the detailed analysis tools seems
>>like (so to
>>speak) a waste of energy, since the goal for an existing
>>building is not
>>primarily prediction of energy use using a theoretical
>>weather pattern,
>>but validation that you can match energy with actual
>>weather and actual
>>usage. I've just started experimenting with a tool
>>called "EZ Sim"
>>(www.ezsim.com), which is geared toward existing building
>>analysis.
>>It's too early to tell in detail, but it seems to have
>>the right
>>philosophy, which is something like "Use good information
>>and logic to
>>create a simplified model that matches actual weather
>>well, and you'll
>>understand the principal energy drivers. That will guide
>>you toward the
>>most effective solutions."
>>
>>Getting to that optimum is not always a cakewalk, but
>>good results
>>become achievable if you start with good information!
>>
>>
>>The Building Performance Team
>>James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
>>1631 Acacia Drive NW
>>Grand Rapids, MI 49504
>>616 450 8653
>>
>>
>>
>>The Building Performance Team
>>James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
>>1631 Acacia Drive NW
>>Grand Rapids, MI 49504
>>616 450 8653
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>>[mailto:bldg-rate-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On
>>Behalf Of Jason
>>Glazer
>>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:23 PM
>>To: bldg-rate at onebuilding.org
>>Subject: [Bldg-rate] 8 Energy Benchmarking Hurdles (and
>>How to Get Over
>>Them)
>>
>>I just came acrosA good article Leah B. Garris for
>>BUILDINGS magazine.
>>
>>http://www.buildings.com/articles/detail.aspx?contentID=6208
>>
>>Is this a good summary of the problems and solutions?
>>
>>What other hurdles have people seen related to building
>>energy
>>benchmarking?
>>
>>Jason
>>
>>--
>>Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin
>>for
>>onebuilding.org building performance mailing lists
>>_______________________________________________
>>Bldg-rate mailing list
>>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
>>message to
>>BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Bldg-rate mailing list
>>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
>>message to
>>BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Bldg-rate mailing list
>>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
>>message to
>>BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
> Dean Sherwin CPE
> Certified Professional Estimator
> LEED Accredited Professional
> CONSTRUCTION COST MANAGEMENT
> 3, Cherry Street
> PO Box 11
> Media, PA 19063-0011
> (610)892 8860
> fax (610) 892 7862
> costman at verizon.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
><http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org/attachments/20081010/70b1dba1/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-rate mailing list
> Bldg-rate at lists.onebuilding.org
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org
>
>
> End of Bldg-rate Digest, Vol 3, Issue 2
> ***************************************
Janice K. Means, PE
Assistant Professor
College of Architecture and Design
Lawrence Technological University
21000 West Ten Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48075-1058
Office: A-217 Phone: 248.204.2852 Fax: 248.204.2900
More information about the Bldg-rate
mailing list