[Bldg-sim] energy savings from 2001 to 2004 90.1

[Samuel Brunswick]

Hi Jill,

I'm resending my reply because it got bounced from the mailing list because
I sent it from my other email by mistake. Sorry for clogging your inbox.

Here's the original:

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) released a report "Analysis of
Energy Saving Impacts of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for the State of New York" that
compares ASHRAE 90.1-2001 vs 2004. For school buildings in three different
cities in New York they found percent savings in site energy use of around
7%. You can find the report here:
http://www.energycodes.gov/publications/techassist.stm.

 PNNL also did a similar report for some Gulf Coast cities, "Analyis of
Energy Saving Impacts of New Commercial Codes for the Gulf Coast",
comparing ASHRAE 90.1-1975 vs 2001 vs 2004 that can be found at the same
link. They found incremental improvements for school buildings of around
7-10%.

They also recently released a report, "Achieving the 30% Goal: Energy and
Coast Savings Analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010", looking at nationwide
energy savings for different building types from ASHRAE 2004 vs 2010. That
one can be found here:
http://www.energycodes.gov/publications/research/documents/codes/PNNL-20405.pdf

Hope this helps,

Sam
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Nathan Miller <nathanm at rushingco.com>wrote:

> I swear I’ve seen some graphs before showing the progression of 90.1 and
> the relative savings between cycles. It is, of course, highly dependent on
> your building type and climate.****
>
> ** **
>
> Here are some useful links to DOE reports that will probably help you
> (check out the “Determinations” for quantitative comparisons):****
>
> http://www.energycodes.gov/analysis/#savingsEstimates ****
>
> ** **
>
> This one specifically compares 90.1-1999 with 90.1-2004 for commercial
> buildings, which is the closest I could find to your specific request (2001
> is just 1999 + addenda, isn’t it?).
> http://www.energycodes.gov/status/documents/determinations_com_dif04.pdf**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> *Nathan Miller, PE, LEED AP BD+C*
>
> *Mechanical Engineer/Senior Energy Analyst*
>
> *O *206-285-7100 | *D* 206-788-4577****
>
> *www.rushingco.com* <http://www.rushingco.com/>****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Jill Dalglish
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:40 AM
> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] energy savings from 2001 to 2004 90.1****
>
> ** **
>
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have a feel for a percentage savings going from the 90.1-2001
> to 90.1-2004? For example, if a school building achieved a 38% savings over
> the 2004 code, what would the estimated savings range be as compared to the
> 2001 code?
>
> Thank you,****
>
> --
>
> ****
>
> *Jill Dalglish
> Dalglish Daylighting*****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20120404/1174c5ad/attachment-0001.htm>