[BLDG-SIM] Policy for Investing Public Funds in Energy Software

[Charles Eley]

John Karaski,

I will try to address your questions.

> I read your attachment.  Thanks.  I am confused about one issue, though:
> Since PowerDOE has a graphical interface and uses DOE2.2 as the simulation
> engine, where does that leave VisualDOE?  In Strategy #2?  These seem to be
> competing rather than cooperating products going after a very small market
> (2000 users by your numbers).

VisualDOE and PowerDOE are competitors. The programs have some commonality,
but they are also different in many ways. PowerDOE is tightly integrated with
DOE-2.2, while VisualDOE maintains its own data structure and can more easily
use other engines such as EnergyPlus. VisualDOE is easier to use, but does
not expose all the power of DOE-2.

I believe that there should be competition in the private sector and that public 
funding should focus on providing a common foundation for private sector products,
e.g. engines like DOE-2x, software components that can be plugged into private sector
applications, and rule sets for implementing the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 energy
cost budget method, etc.

> If VisualDOE does anything better than PowerDOE, maybe those advanced
> features could be integrated into PowerDOE?  This addresses, in a arguably
> basic way, the public funds issue Jeff Hirsch raised.

I think diversity and competition are good, as long as policies for
public investments let the market work fairly. The software that is ideal for an
HVAC contractor is not the same program that is ideal for an architect struggling
with schematic design concepts. The ideal program for a mechanical engineer is
not the best program for a lighting designer. So I guess I would prefer to see lots
of products, built from the same publicly funded foundation, but targeted toward
the needs of specific sectors of the market.

> The market appears, in my humble and non-expert opinion, to be too small to
> support all the simulation software packages currently available.  This
> might be diluting public funds.  Again, that's just a wild guess on my part,
> but I'd rather have one awesome product vs. many good ones.

My number of 2,000 is my estimate of the User's News mailing list. However,
I think the market is much larger than this if you include mainstream architects,
engineers, ESCOs and other potential users.

If public funding were focused on engines, rule sets and software components,
then there would be no diluting of public funds. The products of public
investment would be offered to all private software developers in a consistent
manner. The public investment would be leveraged by a greater private sector
investment.

Charles Eley, FAIA, PE








===========================
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/20000131/ea18ada2/attachment.htm>