Dear all,
For a non-residential building in California, I am assessing the possibility of including the electricity produced by a PV System in my energy consumption of my proposed building.
Do we know if this is possible, to balance my Net-zero Energy building against the reference building?
My energy consumption balance without the PV System might exceed that of the reference building.
Any ideas if this will be included in the 2013 version of title 24?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Regards
Nadir Abdessemed
California Title-24 Energy Compliance calculations do not allow any
credit for PV energy. Solar hot water is accounted for, but not
electrical production.
Not at all.
It looks like the 2013 Standards will allow credit, but I don't know how
much or how at the moment.
Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
Thank you very much Robert.
I wonder, if I drive the chiller plant directly with the PV system, couldn't we argue that I can then draw my system boundary around Chiller+PV for a very efficient cooling system, i.e. solar cooling ...?
This efficient system would then reduce my energy consumption associated to cooling, no?
Kind regards
Nadir
________________________________
Von: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] Im Auftrag von RobertWichert
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. M?rz 2013 20:05
An: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Betreff: Re: [Bldg-sim] Title 24 Performance Approach including renewable Electricity Production
California Title-24 Energy Compliance calculations do not allow any credit for PV energy. Solar hot water is accounted for, but not electrical production.
Not at all.
It looks like the 2013 Standards will allow credit, but I don't know how much or how at the moment.
Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
As far as I know, Nadir, that argument won't work with CA Title-24
Energy Compliance.
Maybe next year!
Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
Nadir,
How is it that the energy consumption of your building might exceed that
of the reference building? Using PVs seems like a very expensive way to
make a building code-compliant.
Joe Huang
Dear Joe,
I have the following concerns.
My (potentially and only formally badly performing) proposed building will not be a true representation of my (hopefully well performing, Net Zero Energy) real building as certain design features, according to my understanding, can not be considered in title 24 performance approach, e.g.:
-Exterior movable sun protection to ensure my 100% glazed fa?ade is sufficiently protected
-Solar protection by trees,
-increased daylight due to generous glazing
-geothermal cooling
-some more technologies successfully implemented in other countries but not mentioned in title 24 ...
The PV has actually nothing to do with this, we have them anyway to reach Net Zero. I just ask myself how we can formally represent our well performing building (again, irrespective of the PV) with a building that does not allow for the set of measures as suggested above.
Does this make sense?
Regards
Nadir, Transsolar
________________________________
Von: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] Im Auftrag von Joe Huang
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. M?rz 2013 06:09
An: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Betreff: Re: [Bldg-sim] Title 24 Performance Approach including renewable Electricity Production
Nadir,
How is it that the energy consumption of your building might exceed that of the reference building? Using PVs seems like a very expensive way to make a building code-compliant.
Joe Huang
Nadir,
Have you actually done simulations to show that your proposed design
fails to meet the Title-24 performance budget? Title-24 is a minimum
performance standard, so if your basic design without the extra features
cannot meet Title-24, that would tell me there's something suboptimal
about your design. I don't see anything in the extra features you
mentioned that necessitates nor benefits from a higher base load, so if
you were to modify your design and make it compliant to Title-24, you
may find the features to work even better, and further reduce the need
for PV.
I am not a fan of 100% glazed facades, especially for sunny, mild to hot
climates like in California. Whenever I see an all-glazed building with
elaborate movable shading, I always wonder why didn't the architect
reduce the amount of glazing? From the studies I've done, the trade-off
between
daylighting and cooling loads peaks at about 20% WWR, beyond which
cooling energy use increases more than lighting energy savings.
I haven't followed Title-24 too closely these days, but I do remember
the reasons why the Energy Commission eliminated the credit for shading
devices a long time ago - they found they were often not installed, can
break, or were not used. There must be similar concerns about trees.
Joe Huang