<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Carol Gardner</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com">cmg750@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:40 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-rate] LEED+90.1 Process/Plug Loads Conundrum<br>To: James Hess <<a href="mailto:JHess@tmecorp.com">JHess@tmecorp.com</a>>, Nick Caton <<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>>, Karen Walkerman <<a href="mailto:kwalkerman@gmail.com">kwalkerman@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:bldg-rate@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-rate@lists.onebuilding.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:bldg-rate@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-rate@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br><br><br>Hi Nick,<br><br>
I'm glad you raised this issue. <br><br>First, I agree with James, and have heard from other people, that LEED accepts documentation saying something as basic as "hey, I don't have 25% plug loads".<br>
<br>Second, when you have to create a baseline to measure up from, you are forced to say what that baseline is. For instance, in 1985-86, working on the BPA-funded Energy Edge project, we had to figure out the baseline for a group of buildings being designed to exceed the current energy codes by 30%. We didn't have a baseline then. To deal with this we assembled a group of people that we euphemistically called The Greybeards (so sorry to you all). The tables now known as G3.1.1A & G3.1.1B in Standard 90 came out of what we created in that moment of time. We were trying to limit what is called "gaming the system"<br>
<br>So now it seems it has been deemed important to control the baseline a little more: by specifying plug loads at 25%. The goal of trying to limit gaming the system might be the source of the 25%. The danger which Nick has clearly demonstrated in his email is that what is meant to control gaming the system, may now actually be creating it.<br>
<br>Further thoughts/comments welcome,<br><font color="#888888"><br>Carol<br><br></font><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM, James Hess <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:JHess@tmecorp.com" target="_blank">JHess@tmecorp.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">This is a good question.
On prior projects we have worked on, I have found that you can have less than
25% plug loads, so long as you have some documentation to back it up.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">For example, we are currently
working on a prison project. The plug loads are very low for obvious
reasons; they don’t provide stereos, computers, ipods, TV’s, etc.
to the inmates (typically, all they get is an alarm clock/radio that uses ~
< 10 watts). There is no way on this project that we could get the
plug loads to come in at 25% unless we artificially jacked them up to levels
that would never exist in reality. We would have a similar problem in
that the Proposed Design equipment would not be able to cool the spaces.
So, we just document the loads we do have and I believe we are good. The
project has been through the 1<sup>st</sup> review and this has not come up as
an issue. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I believe we have had other
projects where we documented the loads we had and passed the review with no
problems. We will typically develop a simple spreadsheet and document the
internal loads that each room has. That is easy enough to do these days I
believe, for most applications. For example, a typical desktop computer
uses about 65 watts on average, monitor = ~ 45 watts (depending on size), clock
radio ~ 10 to 15 watts, etc. you get the point. (get a “Killawatt”
power meter from Amazon and have some fun taking some measurements to see
approximately how much power stuff uses, guaranteed to provide hours of fun).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Just provide some documentation
on some good reasonable estimates for the loads and I think you will be fine.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">An alternate method is to use
default values from Table G-B from the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Users Manual.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">For example, the Receptacle
Power Density for the Office Building Type is 0.75 watts/SF per Table G-5.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">If using that value results in
the process loads being less than 25%, my comment to the reviewers would be
that the 0.75 watts/SF is the value determined by ASHRAE to be appropriate for
the building type.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I think the most important thing
is to use something reasonable and defendable, and make it the same between the
Baseline and Proposed Design energy models. Our experience indicates that
it does not have to be exactly 25%, can be less than 25% or greater than 25%,
depending on the building.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">One thing that is interesting is
that on federal projects, per EPACT requirements, you do not have to factor in
the process/recep loads for the purpose of determining whether the 30% savings
requirement has been met. That makes it easier to show 30% savings.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;">Thanks!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;">JAH</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(0, 176, 80);"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(0, 176, 80);">James A. Hess, PE, CEM</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(0, 176, 80);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Senior Energy Engineer</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">TME, Inc.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Little Rock, AR</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Mobile: 501-351-4667</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: Consolas; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: Consolas; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">
<a href="mailto:bldg-rate-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-rate-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:bldg-rate-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-rate-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nick Caton<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 30, 2010 12:55 PM<div><br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:bldg-rate@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-rate@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Bldg-rate] LEED+90.1 Process/Plug Loads Conundrum</div></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Something new occurred to me this week and I’d love to
hear others’ thoughts!</p><div><div></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">LEED prescribes baseline/proposed energy models to follow
ASHRAE 90.1 with a caveat: the “process energy costs” must
total 25% of the baseline energy costs. By extension, 90.1 requires the
same loads/schedules be applied to the proposed model as they have to
match. As an aside, the LEED EAc1 templates appear to calculate/check
this using process energy consumption (not cost), but that’s not what I’m
getting at…</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I just had a typical case where I had to inflate the
baseline internal miscellaneous equipment loads to get to 25%. These
additional loads were substantial enough that when applied to the proposed
model/design, I ran into many unmet cooling hours for the equipment capacities
entered. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then I realized: We can define additional equipment
electricity loads but simultaneously apply a multiplier (in eQuest anyway
– I expect this is feasible other programs also) to reduce/negate the
corresponding heat load contributions. This results in the energy
consumption/costs showing up correctly in the final results/reports, but does
not artificially inflate the internal loads that the baseline/proposed systems
must handle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Would this practice (which incidentally can be a time saver)
of accounting for extra process/miscellaneous loads without extra thermal
contributions be in line with the intent of ASHRAE/USGBC? It would still
normalize the otherwise unstandardized process consumption/costs of the
baseline/proposed models between different building types…</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the other hand, if it really is the intent of USGBC to
add arbitrary additional internal heat loads to our models that our actual
designs were not designed and sized for, does it follow that we should allow the
proposed models to autosize cooling equipment/fan capacities and not specify
them (this would seem incongruous with 90.1 to me)?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">~Nick</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img src="" alt="cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB" width="119" height="37"><b><span style="color: rgb(45, 77, 94);"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: rgb(45, 77, 94);"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: rgb(45, 77, 94);">NICK CATON, E.I.T.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(45, 77, 94);"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: rgb(204, 153, 0);">PROJECT ENGINEER</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; color: rgb(204, 153, 0);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(45, 77, 94);">25501 west
valley parkway</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(45, 77, 94);">olathe ks 66061</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(45, 77, 94);">direct 913
344.0036</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(45, 77, 94);">fax 913
345.0617</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(45, 77, 94);">Check out
our new web-site @ </span></i><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><a href="http://www.smithboucher.com" title="blocked::www.smithboucher.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">www.smithboucher.com</span></a></span><u><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: blue;"> </span></u><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-rate mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-rate-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a href="mailto:BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" target="_blank">BLDG-RATE-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
<br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div style="display: inline;"></div>
</div><br><div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style>