[Bldg-sim] LEED 2009 Modelling - Electric Vehicles and Rainwater Cisterns
cj at enersave.ca
Wed Aug 10 10:56:17 PDT 2011
I bring up the case of indoor electric vehicle
charging stations such as one might find in a
huge refrigerated warehouse - I toured a Loblaws
facility. The vehicles, batteries and charging
systems were the latest and most efficient the
designer could find. The quote I heard was "20%
more efficient, less heat, etc.". The
ventilation requirements for this type of
vehicle/charging system are also less than for
industry standard equipment. Therefore, there
are significant savings if there is a baseline
for this equipment and I think the whole point of
including such equipment would be to calculate
the savings over industry standard and apply
those savings as process energy credit. At
least, that is how I would make my case if I were submitting for LEED Canada.
At 11:08 AM 10/08/2011, David Eldridge wrote:
>Water pumps I see as a building system that
>could be included. Other energy users related
>to plumbing would be part of the building energy.
>Electric vehicles though I think you could make
>a case for as an external load to the project
>subject to your ability to quantify the
>usage. For example if you had a submeter and
>billed the fleet manager for the electricity I see this as a pass-through.
>Without a submeter it might be harder to
>justify, as you'd never really know how much it
>was, and your subsequent utility bill reporting would include this energy.
>Let me suggest a parallel - If there was a
>diesel tank on-site for fueling trucks it wouldn't be included.
>But it would be tricky to document/report if
>that same tank fed the heating system, if you didn't log the usage for trucks.
>Sent from my iPhone
>On Aug 10, 2011, at 9:06 AM, "Dahlstrom, Aaron"
><<mailto:ADahlstrom at in-posse.com>ADahlstrom at in-posse.com> wrote:
>>I agree with Kevin my understanding is, if
>>the load is served frrom the building meter and
>>located within the LEED boundary, it should be included in the LEED model.
>>Both items would show up in the design and the
>>baseline, as process energy consumers.
>>There is a tradeoff between water efficiency
>>and energy efficiency that is made when a
>>building decides to install its own water
>>pressurization pumps. Iâm not sure if your
>>municipal water supply system has the
>>controllability to reduce its water
>>pressurization pumping energy based on your use
>>of recovered water but I havenât had the
>>chance to work on those systems before, and
>>Iâm not sure how those systems are assembled.
>>If there are any efficiency measures on the
>>rainwater pump that would be considered above
>>âdocumented industry standardâ, you could
>>look at documenting a reduction from the
>>baseline via an Exceptional Calculation method.
>>That said, I imagine that the key thing for
>>both loads would be determining a realistic
>>schedule of use. You might find that the
>>electric charging station in particular has a
>>high peak power draw but a relatively low
>>consumption, due to limited hours of use.
>>In line with Kevinâs suggestion if the
>>electric vehicles are replacing fleet vehicles
>>that woould âtraditionallyâ be sourced from
>>another fuel, there may be an opportunity to
>>claim a different baseline and show savings.
>>But if they are just for visitors / employees,
>>you might just use a baseline that is identical to your design.
>>Aaron Dahlstrom , PE, LEEDÂ® AP
>>In Posse A subsidiary of AKF| 1500 Walnut
>>Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102
>>d: 215-282-6753| m: 267-507-5470| In Posse: 215-282-6800| AKF: 215-735-7290
>><mailto:ADahlstrom at in-posse.com>ADahlstrom at in-posse.com
>>| in posse web:
>><http://www.in-posse.com>www.in-posse.com | akf
>><mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>>[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Kyte
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:28 AM
>>To: Aaron Smith;
>><mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2009 Modelling -
>>Electric Vehicles and Rainwater Cisterns
>>I would think you would include these measures
>>as an external load directly on the
>>meter. Each one individually is probably
>>contributing to its own LEED point. However,
>>it does raise questions on how one could
>>benchmark such measures. For the electric
>>vehicle charging stations, what if an on-site
>>gas station was theorized as a base
>>case? Sounds like a lot of extra work, and
>>what takes more energy to make, coal or
>>gasoline? Also, the rainwater pump is used for
>>toilet rooms or for gardening? Last I checked
>>pumping energy to water flowers was not
>>included, though I suppose it probably is not.
>>From: Aaron Smith [mailto:asmith at mreng.ca]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:21 AM
>>To: <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>>Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2009 Modelling -
>>Electric Vehicles and Rainwater Cisterns
>>Iâm putting together a LEED 2009 Submission
>>and the rules now state that âBoth the
>>baseline building model and the proposed model
>>must cover all building energy components
â (pg. 286 of LEED Canada 2009).
>>I have no trouble including computer equipment,
>>elevators and exterior lights but we also have
>>a rainwater cistern pump and electric vehicle
>>charging stations. Iâm not sure if the
>>electric vehicles should be considered
>>âbuilding energy componentsâ. As well,
>>both technologies actually save energy
>>elsewhere (gasoline/diesel and water utility
>>pumping power) so I donât think we should be
>>penalized in our % energy cost savings by
>>adding these two energy uses to both reference
>>model and proposed model. Any thoughts on these?
>>Aaron Smith, P.Eng
>>LEEDÂ® AP BD+C, M-ASHRAE, Mechanical Engineer
>>t: (902) 422-7393
>>f: (902) 423-4945
>>e: <mailto:asmith at mreng.ca>asmith at mreng.ca
>>The electronic message contained herein is
>>private and confidential, intended only for the
>>recipient(s) specified. If you have received
>>this message in error, please delete it and
>>notify us immediately. Any accompanying files
>>are supplied as a matter of courtesy only. The
>>data are without warranty of any kind. Any
>>person or business making use of the data is
>>responsible for confirming its accuracy and
>>completeness. M&R Engineering Ltd. is not
>>responsible for edited or produced versions of this digital information.
>>This e-mail may contain information that is
>>confidential, privileged or otherwise protected
>>from disclosure. If you are not an intended
>>recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or
>>redistribute it by any means. Please delete it
>>and any attachments and notify the sender that
>>you have received it in error. Unintended
>>recipients are prohibited from taking action on
>>the basis of information in this e-mail. E-mail
>>messages may contain computer viruses or other
>>defects, may not be accurately replicated on
>>other systems, or may be intercepted, deleted
>>or interfered without the knowledge of the
>>sender or the intended recipient. If you are
>>not comfortable with the risks associated with
>>e-mail messages, you may decide not to use
>>e-mail to communicate with In Posse.
>>Bldg-sim mailing list
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a
>>blank message to
>><mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>Bldg-sim mailing list
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a
>blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
14 Oneida Avenue
Toronto, ON M5J 2E3.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bldg-sim