[bldg-sim] politics or science?

[Misuriello, Harry]

Reneee and list members:  

 

I'm brand new to the bldg-sim list, but well-acquainted with the IECC
code rollback issues described in the Washington Post article.  As one
of those quoted in the Post article, I'd like to refer list members to
the following two studies that were done by the ACEEE and NAIMA.
Descriptions of both studies are provided below and the studies are
available on the web at the links provided.  The original DOE study is
no longer available at the DOE web site as far as I know.

 

I believe these two studies represent good approaches to evaluating the
cost-effectiveness and energy savings impacts from building energy code
modifications.  Others contemplating similar work would do well to look
at these examples.

 

The answer to Renee's original question is that both politics and
science were involved in the outcome of the IECC in Detroit.  However,
building science did not prevail.

 

Regards,

Harry

 

 

 

Study #1

ACEEE study, Impact Assessment of 2004 IECC Wall Criteria Changes,
February 2005, William R. Prindle, ACEEE and Bion D. Howard, Building
Environmental Science and Technology

See: http://www.aceee.org/buildings/policy_legis/bldgcodes/iecc.pdf

Synopsis: ACEEE conducted an analysis of the impacts of wall thermal
performance improvements that were included in the 2004 International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The wall improvements were proposed
because the format change in the 2004 IECC de-couples wall insulation
criteria from window area, running the risk of increasing home energy
use. Because some parties voiced objections to these improvements, ACEEE
developed this study to provide a quantitative basis for the IECC
Committee and other parties to assess the value of these improvements.
Using a detailed building simulation approach and a federally developed
cost-effectiveness method, our study found that the modest wall
stringency improvements would save about 500 trillion Btu over 30 years,
saving homeowners over $7 billion in energy bills. They are
cost-effective on a lifecycle basis, even assuming a limited set of
compliance options. In fact, because the IECC allows multiple compliance
paths, the small stringency increase represented by the wall criteria
improvements can be met in any number of ways. Based on this analysis,
we recommend the IECC Committee retain the current stringency levels in
the 2004 IECC. 

 

Study #2

New Report Confirms Cost Effectiveness Of Increased Insulation In 2004
IECC

ICF Study Shows All Typical Insulation Products Can Be Used
Cost-Effectively 

 

Alexandria, VA (August 8, 2005) - A new independent study was released
today that measured the cost effectiveness of increasing insulation in
the 2004 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).  The report,
conducted by ICF Consulting, an international management, technology,
and policy consulting firm which works closely with EPA ENERGY STAR,
found that in every climate zone there is a cost-effective,
energy-saving insulation wall scenario that meets the 2004 IECC.  The
final report concluded that the levels of insulation in the 2004 IECC
will lead to increased savings and create more affordable housing by
decreasing utility costs immediately and over the life of the home.

 

ICF conducted the study on behalf of the North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) and the Polyisocyanurate Insulation
Manufacturers Association (PIMA). Simulating the annual energy
consumption of single-family homes, ICF tested homes configured with one
of four wall insulation scenarios using a combination of common
insulation materials that either met or exceeded the proposed code
requirements.  This data was then compared with homes designed with
insulation that falls short of the 2004 IECC. 

 

"The ICF study conclusively demonstrates the value of the 2004 IECC,"
said Charles Cottrell, vice president, technical services for NAIMA.
"The updated codes are a necessary step towards energy conservation
since so many homes and buildings are built to the minimum code
requirements. The increased levels of insulation represent sound
building practice."

 

ICF Consulting also reviewed an earlier report by the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL) to compare the research strategy used by ICF.
The PNNL study was limited in its focus by not taking into account
regional variations and only analyzing one insulation scenario that
would meet the code.  From its own results and the data included in the
PNNL report, ICF concluded the following:

 

In all climate zones, at least one of the wall scenarios had a payback
of zero years; Homeowners could receive an immediate cash flow increase
of up to $89 per year; Energy savings from increased insulation could
continue to accrue throughout the lifetime of the building, unlike the
decreasing value of energy-efficient appliances; and using rigid
insulated sheathing with medium-density fiber glass batt insulation is
the most effective insulation combination. 

"Aided by ICF Consulting's proprietary modeling tool, our analysis was
able to be very granular and present options at a local level.  We found
that locally and nationally, specific strategies for cost-effectively
increasing insulation levels are always available.  This is good news
for builders and home owners seeking to reduce the overall cost of home
ownership," says David Meisegeier, an ICF Consulting project manager.

 

ICF Consulting calculated the energy reduction into utility bill savings
and compared these figures with cost of materials, installation and
labor for several construction types.  The study took into account
regional variations of utility costs, material and labor costs and
housing characteristics. More than 1.23 million simulations were
conducted. For a copy of the report, go to www.naima.org/icf

.

 

-----------------------

Harry Misuriello

Director of Buildings and Utility Programs

Alliance to Save Energy

1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202 530 2214

Fax: 202 331 9588

 

________________________________

From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Renee J.
Azerbegi
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:21 PM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] politics or science?

 


Debate Continues Over Increasing Insulation Efficiency 


 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR200510
2401786.html

 

I keep hearing about this in the news - is it all lobbyists at work are
is there any science to the statement "The Energy Department issued a
statement on Sept. 28, the day before a key vote by a code-setting body,
saying it could not support more stringent "R-values" -- which measure
the resistance of insulation to loss of heat -- because there is "still
inadequate data on the cost and implementation" of the increase."

 

If anyone is modeling the impact and cost of insulation levels, I would
think it would be someone on this building simulation list! Please let
us all know what the status is on this if you know. 

 

Sounds like the DOE is supporting turning off the lights but not
supporting reducing on-site natural gas consumption, and gas rates are
expected to increase significantly this winter in the US - 45 to 70%!

Renee Azerbegi

 

 
 
==================
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20051027/76bf939e/attachment-0002.htm>