[BLDG-SIM] hornets nest?

[Mark Case]

I agree - DOE - what a weird name for a computer program!
Perhaps my perceptions of success have been unduly tainted by the seemingly
endless wait for PowerDOE and 2.2. That,  combined with the evolution of DOE
2.x code, which often seems to be pieces of code randomly stuck together by
engineer-computer geeks (no offense meant to said geeks). I agree that the
DOE2.x program has had a tremendous impact over the last twenty years, and
that it wouldn't have happened without Dept. of Energy support.  I didn't
say the money was - or is - being wasted, only questioned if there are
better ways to spend it. (Indeed, I'd like to see more federal support, but
in perhaps a more open and competitive environment.) Not being a software
developer, I wonder about the trade-offs of evolving existing code vs. major
re-designs.
You are obviously more optimistic than I about the time frame and commercial
interest of EnergyPlus - I guess only time will tell. I'm curious about
peoples' take on the EP Beta licensee - especially from potential
developers. We've debated signing up but are probably going to wait a while.

By the way - it's great to see some interest!

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Postman at gard.com [mailto:Postman at gard.com]On Behalf Of Dragan
Curcija
    Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 12:48 PM
    To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
    Subject: [BLDG-SIM] hornets nest?


    Let me offer my opinion on this 'controversy'.

    I personally disagree with contentions in this posting that "The history
of DOE and the national labs in creating and releasing such software is not
very good" and that "the DOE is spending our money to create new code and
have arguably abandoned the multi-million dollar investment in previous
DOE2.x development".  First let me state that from all available evidence,
the whole DOE (and here DOE is the name of the program - what a strange
choice for program name, BTW) effort is one of the most successful
undertakings in a brief history of computer program development and
represent well spent government dollars by any standard.  The multitude of
published studies and successful use of the program in commercial world,
including numerous PC implementations and user friendly implementations
(including PowerDOE) clearly proves this point.  Not only was it useful in
U.S., but it is widely used world wide helping achieve better energy
efficiency of buildings in the process.

    As far as I know neither DOE nor EnergyPlus have any planned user
interface (other than arcane input file format).  That is left to commercial
world, including Jeff Hirsch, to put into PowerDOE.  It seems to me that
there is a quite a bit of confusion about PowerDOE, which is in my opinion,
very good program.  PowerDOE is nothing more than good pre and post
processor, which can have DOE 2.2 or EnergyPlus as underlying engine.  Also,
EnergyPlus doesn't mean abandonment of DOE 2 program, it rather builds on
strengths of BLAST and DOE2 programs, and basically streamlines government
money, which was to some extent wasted on the parallel effort to develop two
different programs for the same purpose.

    EnergyPlus is an open source program, and alpha version is just being
released.  For measly $100 (I think) anybody can get license agreement and
build commercial strength pre and post-processor to it.  I believe that many
current developers will use this opportunity and by the time the program is
released (planned for beginning of next year), we will likely have number of
commercial programs that will incorporate user friendly interface.

    This is not the first time that government is accused of "wasting tax
payer dollars" by funding these kind of projects.  Being in the field of
fenestration research, sponsored also by DOE, I heard this kind of argument
all too often from various people.  However, whenever I look back I see
literally tens of billions of dollars saved by having government "push" the
envelope and industry, by spending, oh... maybe $100 million over the past
20 years.  What a return on investment!  I don't have data on the impact
that DOE 2 had in the past 20 years, but I bet that they are not far off.  I
have no doubt in my mind that EnergyPlus is going to continue this path of
excellence.  And I am talking only about dollar savings.  How about improved
quality of lives by having more comfortable homes, and by having less
pollution?

    For those who would like to learn more about EnergyPlus (and other
simulation programs) there is going to be IBPSA meeting and software
demonstration in Dallas in conjunction with ASHRAE meeting on Saturday,
February 5 from 4 to 7 p.m. in Pullman A Room at Hyatt Regency Dallas.  It
is open to anyone.

    Regards,
    Dragan Curcija,
    Senior Research Scientist

    University of Massachusetts
    Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    Engineering Lab Building
    Amherst, MA 01003-2210

    TEL: (413) 545-4454
    FAX: (413) 545-1027
    email: curcija at ceere.org
    www:   http://www.ceere.org/faculty/curcija.html

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Postman at gard.com [mailto:Postman at gard.com]On Behalf Of Mark
Case
        Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 4:09 PM
        To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
        Subject: [BLDG-SIM] hornets nest?


        Most of you are undoubtedly aware of the recent controversy over
DOE2.2 PowerDoe and EnergyPlus. I know that many people on this list are
actively involved in one or more of these programs.
        I think this list is as good a place as any to start a serious
discussion about where things are going, why, and how we (users of the
tools) feel about these things.

        I'll start by boldly stating that I don't believe EnergyPlus will
provide a truly useful (on-the-ground useful) tool for many years to come.
The history of DOE and the national labs in creating and releasing such
software is not very good.
        Are the labs and developers trying to create a product useable in a
competitive design consulting world? The last thing we need is another
arcane simulation package with no front end or post processor - been there,
done that. Perhaps new algorithyms and advanced coding are needed but
without the interface they won't help me at all. I'd rather use the `older'
ones and keep the ability to show designers what I'm doing.

        One more comment and question - the DOE is spending our money to
create new code and have arguably abandoned the multi-million dollar
investment in previous DOE2.x developent. Is this the best use of taxpayer
money?

        Come on everybody - don't be afraid to weigh-in on this - let's hear
your thoughts!
==================
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/20000127/82ef33e7/attachment-0002.htm>