[bldg-sim] politics or science?

[Pope, Stephen]

Hi Renee 
 
While the article refers to US politics, it's not much different up here in
end result. The truth (as usual) is somewhere in the middle. It is very easy
to demonstrate diminishing returns on insulation levels, so there is a
science basis to the position that increasing insulation is not justifiable
(past a certain point - usually considerably higher than the industry is
used to providing, unless we are talking about Alaska, Yukon, NWT or
Nunavut). The Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (MNECCB)
plotted the lowest life-cycle values for insulation and set them as the
reference point by region (degree days) and fuel type (based on 1992 fuel
prices).
 
What MNECCB did not do was calculate the impact of downsizing heating and
cooling systems in response to increased thermal control in perimeter zones.
This increases the complexity of the calculation significantly, but is the
beginning of the science based argument to show the benefit of increased
insulation levels beyond currently legislated limits. 
 
There is a growing consensus in Canada that the MNECCB needs to be upgraded,
and the complexity of the system will be under review. If you know of any
group that has undertaken these types of broad scope multivariable studies,
I would be extremely interested in the results. Of course, that's for
heating dominated climates.
 
Best Regards,
SFP



Stephen Pope, OAA, MRAIC 
for 
Natural Resources Canada / CANMET Energy Technology Centre  
Sustainable Buildings & Communities / Commercial Buildings Section 
580 Booth St., 13th Flr, D5,   Ottawa    ON    K1A 0E4  Canada
tel. (613) 947-9823  cel. (613) 324-1642, fax (613) 996-9909 
email spope at nrcan.gc.ca,  web  <http://buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca/>
http://buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca  

  

-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On Behalf Of Renee J.
Azerbegi
Sent: 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/AR2005102401
786.html
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR200510240
1786.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/cedb4c8b/attachment-0002.htm>