[BLDG-SIM] When is building energy simulation cost justified

[Mike Roberts]

Jason,

I definitely believe that it makes sense to do energy simulation on most
commercial and industrial buildings, and sometimes, residential.  On the
other hand, I do not have a lot of faith in codes to accomplish this.  I
have believed for a long time that economics will justify the simulations.
You just have to show the client the economics.  My recent experience on a
few projects where energy codes were involved indicates that there is more
interest in checking off the code compliance than in saving energy.  I was
called in after most decisions were made, just to demonstrate code
compliance.

That said, I believe there are more important things than size.  A small,
air conditioned office building will use more energy than a large, heated
only warehouse.  Expected annual energy costs for the building would be one
avenue.  In earlier days (1970s and 1980s), energy budgets were a popular
method that I still like better than the proscriptive approach of 90.1 and
IECC.  Many of the proscriptive requirements are just plain wrong for many
buildings.

In the long run, I still believe that energy code money should be spent on
education rather than rules.  When we teach an owner that he can get a 30%
ROI on his energy conservation investment, he will be much more interested
than when he is required to meet specific requirements, many of which are
wrong for his building.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: postman at gard.com [mailto:postman at gard.com]On Behalf Of Jason
Glazer
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:39 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] When is building energy simulation cost justified


As an advocate of the use of building energy simulation
modeling, I have often thought that requiring the use of
these tools for buildings that comply with energy codes,
like IECC and ASHRAE 90.1, would make sense for certain
building types and sizes.  Building simulation often seems
to result in significant energy cost savings compared to
the cost of the modeling itself.

In the experience of those on the BLDG-SIM mailing list,
under what conditions is the cost of performing the
modeling cost justified given the results?  Is it possible
to have a simple building size threshold, say 100,000
square feet (about 10,000 square meters), that almost
always applied to when building energy simulation modeling
is cost justified?

Ultimately, I would like to submit change proposals to the
major energy code organizations that include such a
requirement but I need substantiation. Any suggestions or
insights are welcome.

Jason

=========================================================
Jason Glazer, P.E.  jglazer AT gard DOT com  847 698 5686
GARD Analytics - http://www.gard.com/
1028 Busse Highway, Park Ridge, IL 60068
Building Energy Simulation and Analysis
Admin of BLDG-SIM list for building simulation users

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM