[Equest-users] LEED savings spreadsheet error?

[CleanTech Analytics]

Norman,
I experienced a similar issue when using the LEED compliance feature, it
was the point that I decided to remove all my projects from the risk
involved with eQuest.
Think about it, eQuest predates LEED, and is no longer funded by the USDOE,
nor does it have income from sales, so the best you get is this list, as
James and his Jeff  Hirsch can not really do much for all the users. When I
had an issue I tracked down the phone number for the Hirsch's of
805-532-1045, and left a voicemail, then was texted back the message
"please send email to jeff.hirsch at doe2.com and when I emailed the below I
never got a response, and after that just never felt that eQuest was of the
quality that I would be willing to bet my projects on.

Jeff,
I am working on a LEED compliance building model in eQUEST, and have to ask
you a question.
So I created a building that has zero insulation, standard lighting
watts/sqft and ran the compliance analysis.
The building that is not at code energy costs are in the sixty thousand
range, and the 0,90,180,270 average that should be at code is in the ninty
thousand range.This %30 savings for the building that has zero insulation
over the building that has been auto generated to be complaint with
ASHRAE/LEED shows that for some reason the building that is not at code
uses 30% less then the building that is suppose to be at code, and I am
sure that the software is wrong.

Now I have read the PDF published on the subject, and am very curios if the
compliance analysis tool is something that you believe to work correctly?
(I would be happy to find out I made some error, but can not find any such
errors on my part, and someone told me that the tool does not work so I
doubt it is error on my part)


It is great to have such a simple to use and get results tool, but then
what happens when people use what are documented to be working elements of
the software do not work as expected? You are very lucky you double
checked, and for anyone else who is working on a LEED project, I advise
them to buy a tool such as design builder, for use in developing the
project geometry, HVAC and other items that they may be used to doing in
the "Wizards", and then fine tune in the Energy Plus IDF editor what they
may have done in the detailed mode of eQuest. Energy Plus even has the
ability auto generate baseline rotations.

Don't get me wrong, I still use eQuest for quick non sensitive projects,
learned a great deal from the interface, and would advise new energy
modelers to start with it so am not totally anti eQuest per say..


On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM, norman wheatley <normwheatley at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It is possible that you may have attempted to use eQuest for modeling a
> building for LEED. You may even have been so fortunate as to have
> automatically generated the LEED Baseline and the 3 rotated models from the
> Proposed model. You are indeed blessed (and you have no plenums).
>
> However, if you check the ES-D Energy Cost summaries for your 5 models
> against the dollar amounts you see in the exported LEED Analysis
> spreadsheet you will see that they are too low.
> Anyone know why this is?
>
> thanks
> Norm Wheatley
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>


-- 
*Jeremiah D. Crossett*
*CleanTech Analytics*
*503-688-8951*
*www.cleantechanalytics.com* <http://www.cleantechanalytics.com>


*

This document may contain valuable information proprietary to CleanTech
Analytics which is private and confidential. It may not be shared, copied,
stored or transmitted in any form without the prior written consent of
CleanTech Analytics
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20120229/bd3d073b/attachment-0002.htm>