[Equest-users] eQuest/DOE CHW Thermal Storage kW shift

[Brian Fountain]

Good morning Daric,

Firstly, that is a very slick use of excel to generate a heat map.  Very cool.

I believe the answer to your question is that there is another variable to be picked up in the hourly report that gives a "negative demand" (I know) related to the reduction caused by the TES.

[cid:image001.png at 01D6721A.40A3A170]

Looking at your file, I am also not certain that the equipment control defined is actually linked to the chilled water loop.
[cid:image002.png at 01D6721A.8EE903C0]

Hoping this helps - and very interesting study!

Cheers,

Brian


Footprint

Brian Fountain
Associate
d 416 572 8501 m 416 562 6831

From: Equest-users <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> On Behalf Of Daric Adair via Equest-users
Sent: August 13, 2020 6:54 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] eQuest/DOE CHW Thermal Storage kW shift

CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER

Am working on a rather simple Chilled Water (CHW) Thermal Energy Storage (TES) System, but have run into an error where it does not appear that the kW is being shifted properly. Building in Las Vegas. Single Air-cooled Chiller using Chilled Water Storage to off-set demand charges. Testing the model with and without the TES, shows that the kW and costs are reduced, though maybe not as much as anticipated.

Digging into the model, the hourly reported kW from EM1-Cooling end-use and the Chiller kW consumption do not align. There is a single chiller; only cooling equipment in the model. Comparing the two with a HeatMap in the attached excel file shows that the EM1 does not drop off at all when the TES begins to discharge - but that the Chiller demand kW does. The Chiller kW is as expected; EM1 is not. In fact, EM1 with TES is only slightly less than EM1 without TES. Billing appears to be pegged to the EM1, thus, the cost reduction is not as much as expected. What is odd is that the annual sum of kW's and the daily SUMsubtotals between the EM1 and Chiller kW do align - what?! It is as if EM1 is not representing the kW shift that the Chiller is showing.

The CHW system does appear to charge, discharge, and track to the building load; so that is performing as expected.

The Utility rates are the same input and appear to be same on the output size. Equipment Controls and Load Management are different, b/c the non-TES doesnt have TES to charge/discharge.

So - why is the hourly kW from EM1-Cooling end-use different than the reported hourly kW from the chiller? Have scoured the DOE2 reference books and the Detail Report guide to no avail.

Thanks,
DARIC ADAIR PE, CEM, BEMP
Mechanical Engineer, Energy Analyst

HENDERSON ENGINEERS<https://www.hendersonengineers.com/?utm_source=hei&&utm_medium=email&&utm_campaign=hei-shortsignature>
daric.adair at hendersonengineers.com<mailto:daric.adair at hendersonengineers.com>

LICENSED IN KS

HENDERSON PROUD SINCE 1970<https://www.hendersonengineers.com/about-us/our-story/?utm_source=hei&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hei-shortsignature> | JUST GETTING STARTED.


________________________________

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication represents the originator's personal views and opinions, which do not necessarily reflect those of Henderson Engineers, Inc. If you are not the original recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please immediately notify administrator at hendersonengineers.com<mailto:administrator at hendersonengineers.com>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20200814/0fe4618c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 39442 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20200814/0fe4618c/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34724 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20200814/0fe4618c/attachment-0005.png>