[Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?

[Dennis Knight]

Robert,
Simple answer is "No" - that is my point - it more than likely never will.
 You have to include all of your proposed energy conservation measures that
you are likely to apply into a single model with your user and
climate/local specific schedules and profiles included to see what
the aggregated savings maybe.  You can run multiple models changing only
one component to do some sensitivity analysis to see what
variables/measures may give you more dramatic changes in total energy
consumption, cost, carbon  emissions, indoor comfort, life cycle cost, life
cycle assessment, etc.  (which ever your client and you are using as your
decision making criteria).
As for the question regarding 10% energy reduction using 15 SEER equipment:
I've gotten 10% better energy performance using 90.1 minimum SEER compliant
equipment and effecting change in lighting power density, lighting
controls, controllable plug loads and better envelope/less infiltration,
better ventilation and properly downsizing the mechanical systems.  You do
not always have to improve the mechanical efficiency of the HVAC equipment
to achieve an energy efficiency improvement target.  It is a whole building
analysis that the owner's O&M behavior can have a major impact on.
 Conversely, I've had bleeding edge efficiency and complexity in the energy
using systems at some facilities and the buildings perform worse than an
minimum code compliant building  or a local median EUI when a custodian who
knows how to turn things off at night could have done better - when the
owner does not understand how the design team intended the building to be
operated when they made their analysis.  For example, I just investigated a
net zero energy house that was donated to an international non-profit.  It
has 22 SEER geothermal heat pumps, an envelope so tight it had no air
measurable leakage at 80 pascals, LED lighting, solar water heater, energy
recovery ventilator, solar PV, SIPS panel wall system, commercial grade low
e windows and a sophisticated energy monitoring system.  It is built right
next to a conventionally built house, stick framed, minimum residential
code compliant construction with 13 SEER air source heat pumps.  Both are
occupied by single mothers with two children.  The net zero house has worse
energy performance than the code minimum house almost entirely due to
occupant behavior. I personally did not believe you could operate that
house such that it would ever consume much energy, but you can.  In this
case the owner was not determined until after the house was constructed and
did not have a stake in the design and was not trained on the special
features of the house when it was offered to her.  Now that she has been
educated I can see some reductions - but the house is still falling way
short of its goal of net zerobecause the owner is just unwilling to change
her lifestyle no matter what the nergy costs are.
Dennis

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:28 PM, RobertWichert <robert at wichert.org> wrote:

>  I suppose the modeling software and how it treats energy might have
> something to do with it too (Note to CA and TDV), but for starters the
> modeling software will look at actual conditions in the particular place
> where the project is located.  As an absurd case, if there was no cooling
> needed, an infinite SEER would show no improvement.  SEER is for "typical"
> and each project is not necessarily typical.  For somewhere with a high
> cooling demand, SEER should have a greater effect, but cooling is only a
> small part of the energy budget.
>
> I can appreciate that with "10% better walls, 10% better windows (or how
> about 10% less windows), 10% lower lighting wattages, 10% more efficient
> hot water, all compared to the standard, you could get 10% better using a
> SEER 14.3, but I have never gotten that result.  I suppose that I need to
> look harder at the other legs on the stool.  For me, I need SEER 17 to get
> to 10% better in California with a somewhat lopsided stool.  I am curious
> what experience others have.
>
> The theoretical answer may be "Make everything else use 10% less energy
> than standard and have a SEER 14.3 AC unit, and you're done" but to be
> honest, that doesn't ever work for me.
>
> Maybe a better question is; have you ever gotten 10% better than ASHRAE
> 90.1 with a 15 SEER AC system?  In a real project with real people fighting
> over costs, etc.?
>
>
>
> Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C+1 916 966 9060
> FAX +1 916 966 9068
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================
>
> On 1/16/2013 2:25 PM, Dennis Knight wrote:
>
> Robert,
> SEER is a seasonal energy efficiency ratio and is unitless.  It is the "cooling
> output during a typical cooling-season divided by the total electric energy
> input during the same period":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_energy_efficiency_ratio.  A unit
> with 10% or better seasonal cooling energy efficiency over a 13 SEER unit
> would have a SEER rating of 14.3 or greater (1.1x13) if all other operating
> parameters were held constant.  See link for definitions and other
> references.
> Dennis
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM, RobertWichert <robert at wichert.org> wrote:
>
>> My current project has very good windows, "standard" walls, you're right
>> about the lighting, it's right on budget (but residential doesn't really
>> have a budget, so the small common areas are right on budget), better than
>> standard roof.
>>
>> I absolutely agree with you, Nick, on achieving 10% better, but all the
>> trades point to the others.  It's kind of comical, actually.
>>
>> I guess my question on this list could be rephrased, using your approach,
>> as "What SEER is 10% better than SEER 13?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
>> +1 916 966 9060
>> FAX +1 916 966 9068
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===============================================
>>
>> On 1/16/2013 12:34 PM, Nick Caton wrote:
>>
>>> A very simple way of looking at LEED & energy, which I come back to
>>> often for discussions on that level, is to consider a building's
>>> performance like a tripod with three important legs:  Lights, Mechanical,
>>> and Envelope.  If any of those legs is too short, the tripod falls over.
>>>
>>> Building on that analogy, to do 10% better than a LEED baseline, a good
>>> starting place is to have at least:
>>> -  10% better lighting (10% lower LPD),
>>> -  10% better HVAC & hot water heating (10% better efficiencies), and
>>> -  10% better envelope (10% more insulation in walls/roof, 10% better
>>> windows).
>>> For each of these, you can source the baseline/prescriptive levels from
>>> the standard of your choosing.
>>>
>>> Overperforming in one area can sometimes make up for underperfomance in
>>> another, but with diminishing returns.  Amazing HVAC equipment/design has a
>>> harder time shining when you have a poor envelope and/or the lighting
>>> designer treats LPD's as a "budget" they have to use up.  For such reasons,
>>> it's advisable to always consider building performance in holistic fashion
>>> in early/broader discussions.
>>>
>>> That's my (simple) take anyway!
>>>
>>> ~Nick
>>>
>>> NICK CATON, P.E.
>>> SENIOR ENGINEER
>>>
>>> Smith & Boucher Engineers
>>> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
>>> olathe, ks 66061
>>> direct 913.344.0036
>>> fax 913.345.0617
>>> www.smithboucher.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
>>> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of RobertWichert
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:24 AM
>>> To: EnergyPro at yahoogroups.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>>> Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?
>>>
>>> I know that LEED is way more than just energy, and energy is way more
>>> than just equipment, but just for a basis, what SEER and EER do people have
>>> to use to get 10% better than ASHRAE 90.1 to qualify for LEED?  I also know
>>> that you don't have to use ASHRAE 90.1, but that is what I am doing.
>>>
>>> So, what does it take?
>>>
>>> My shot - Residential Apartment, individual DX units, 17 SEER and 13 EER
>>> in California CZ 12 (Mostly cooling).
>>>
>>>    Next?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
>>> +1 916 966 9060
>>> FAX +1 916 966 9068
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ===============================================
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> M. Dennis Knight, P.E.
> Founder & CEO
> *W*hole *B*uilding *S*ystems, LLC
> P.O. Box 1845
> Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
> Phone: 843-437-3647
> Email: dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com
> Website: www.wholebuildingsystems.com
>
>
>


-- 
M. Dennis Knight, P.E.
Founder & CEO
*W*hole *B*uilding *S*ystems, LLC
P.O. Box 1845
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
Phone: 843-437-3647
Email: dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com
Website: www.wholebuildingsystems.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130116/f54e20de/attachment-0002.htm>