<html>
<body>
The problem with the straightforward application of that approach is that
the same process loads will heat the building during cool weather and
process heat may be recoverable to offset other end uses that are
building related--both of which create an unearned credit. In such
cases, energy cost that properly belongs to building environmental
control would be on the wrong meter.<br><br>
If losing some energy credits on rating the building creates more
motivation to improve process energy use, is that a bad thing? In
the end, it's the owner who gets a rated building--so there are
responsible parties involved.<br><br>
About the only simple approach I can think of, and it may not actually be
that simple, is to create a separate category of rating for process
energy-dominated buildings. Agenda item one: define a process
energy-dominated building...<br><br>
Bill Bahnfleth<br><br>
At 05:51 PM 4/12/2007, Jon McHugh wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#0000FF">Marcus,<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">I think a reasonable solution would be to include
the heat loads from machinery in the simulation but not the energy
required to operate the process load. This can be accomplished by
putting the process loads on a separate "meter" in the
simulation. The energy required to operate the process load is
ignored by the other building meters for cooling and lighting, but the
heat addition for the process loads are accounted for.<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">In this way, the LEED certification is for
the building not the process.<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF">Many of he process measures for machine shops:
compressed air controls, fixing air leaks process, interlocking
ventilation with welding or painting operations, HVLP paint spray guns
etc. are not defined by the building designer. <br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<br>
<font color="#0000FF">Sincerely,<br>
</font> <br>
<font color="#0000FF"><br>
</font><font face="Garamond" color="#800000">Jon McHugh, PE<br>
</font><font color="#0000FF"><br>
<hr>
</font><font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Sheffer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<b>Cc:</b> yjiang_mit@yahoo.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] LEED energy saving calculations for Industrial
Facility<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>Under LEED v2.2 you must include all of the process loads
and equipment.<br>
<br>
The post-processing you describe was used under LEED v2.1 and is not
allowed under v2.2.<br>
<br>
You are correct that the opportunity for savings will be less in this
type of facility as a result. The USGBC has recognized that this is
an issue and is working on ways to address it.<br>
<br>
Any thoughts are welcome.<br>
<br>
Marcus Sheffer – Vice Chair USGBC EA TAG<br>
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365<br>
717-292-2636, sheffer@sevengroup.com<br>
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] On Behalf Of Yi Jiang<br>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:17 PM<br>
To: BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] LEED energy saving calculations for Industrial
Facility<br>
<br>
We are working on a LEED NC 2.2 project to predict<br>
energy savings with eQuest for a 200,000 sf machinery<br>
workshop facility. <br>
<br>
One question we have is whether to include the process<br>
loads in the workshop. We feel that it makes the most<br>
sense to include the heat generated from the process<br>
equipment as internal cooling load and treated by HVAC<br>
systems. However, the electrical power specifically to<br>
process equipment should not be included. For such a<br>
machinery facility, the electrical power to process<br>
equipment constitutes 50% of total electricity<br>
consumption, and can significantly reduce the total<br>
energy saving prediction by 10%. Has anyone has<br>
experiences with such a industrial facility? Thanks<br>
<br>
--Yi <br>
<br>
</font><br>
<pre>
==================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre>
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote></body>
<br>
<div>_________________________________________________</div>
<br>
<div>William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE</div>
<div>Professor of Architectural Engineering</div>
<div>Director, Indoor Environment Center</div>
<br>
<div>The Pennsylvania State University </div>
<div>104 Engineering Unit A</div>
<div>University Park, PA 16802 USA</div>
<br>
<div>voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 </div>
<div>e-mail: wbahnfleth@psu.edu</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>
www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/</a></div>
_________________________________________________</html>
<PRE>
===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</PRE>