[Bldg-rate] LEED+90.1 Process/Plug Loads Conundrum

5 posts / 0 new
Last post

---------- Forwarded message ----------

cmg750's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-05
Reputation: 0

Firstly, apologies for the cross-posting, but it appears this topic has
grown include many lists so I can't come up with an alternative!

Secondly, a huge thanks to Carol, James and a large number of others
(who shall remain unnamed until they should decide to join the public
discussion) who have given me direct input on their personal thoughts,
outside of the mailing lists.

I have received a flood of suggestions regarding approaches when the
intent is to follow the 25% rule, and additionally regarding how one
might go about appeasing a USGBC LEED model reviewer when attempting to
document a lower figure. My impression up until this point, based on
colleagues' experience/advice, has been that attempting to substantiate
anything less than 25% process loads would be a futile task and would be
flatly rejected. As a result I never really considered this to be an
option available to us LEED energy modelers. I now understand that for
many, documenting something less than 25% has proven a feasible, if
occasionally exhaustive, task.

When the intent is to follow the 25% baseline process load prescriptive
requirement, I have been exposed (again outside of the lists) to a
surprising number of unique viewpoints and seemingly legitimate
approaches which have led to successfully reviewed LEED model
submissions for others.

Among the approaches to build the process loads to 25% are:

- Adding a single direct internal/external load to the project
electrical meter in addition to the designed space equipment loads -
this approach avoids additional internal heat gains.

- Adding additional or redefining designed space equipment
loads, adding internal heat sources. If and when these additional loads
should result in too many unmet cooling hours in the proposed model,
there are two basic approaches:

o Specify larger system cooling capacities and/or airflows

o Allow those systems cooling capacities/airflows to auto-size

- Keeping the designed space equipment loads without adding any
further, but modifying their utilization schedules to increase space
equipment usage during non-peak cooling hours - this of course adds heat
to the models, but avoids unmet cooling hours due to clashes with
proposed system cooling capacities.

I sincerely hope Carol and others will not misunderstand... Myself and
others do not wish to "game the system," but we seem to have a variety
of viewpoints as to what the intent is for the 25% rule.

If it may help and add to the discussion, my personal opinion leading up
to this inquiry has been that the default 25% rule exists simultaneously
as a means of normalizing the "difficulty level" of attaining LEED EAc1
points for projects with various actual process loads. Perhaps at some
point in time, somebody decided it would be unfair for someone designing
a LEED Platinum toolshed with zero process loads to have an easier time
of it than some poor sucker trying to get some EAc1 credits for an
automotive manufacturing facility with immense process loads?

I will unfortunately be unable to participate in or respond to this
topic of discussion for some time as I will be away from my inbox. I
very much look forward to gaining a better understanding of how we as a
group might come to agree on a "best practice" for this issue. If
anyone should currently have access to a relevant CIR that would
probably be very useful.

A humble thanks again to everyone,

NICK CATON, E.I.T.

Nick-Caton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 805

My apologies also for cross-posting. Bldg-rate does not know me and I simply
do not have time to correct that right now.

First, please, please all of you, keep this sort of discussion on line where
it needs to be! I can't imagine why it would go offline for any other reason
except for two: people are afraid they might say something *wrong, or people
are afraid someone or some organization might in some way get back at
them.*I, for one, refuse to live like that. It's possible that every
one of you is
smarter than me, but I think we all make mistakes and have concerns. So be
it.

Second, wow it's a day of lists for me, I no longer have to worry about
gaming the system in that I am no longer a project engineer. I am very clear
that I do not ever intentionally do it myself on any of my projects. I meet
the technical requirements that are placed before me with as much integrity
as possible.

As do all of you.

Please speak up and don't be afraid of anyone or any organization.

Personal regards to all of you,

Carol

cmg750's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-05
Reputation: 0

Firstly, apologies for the cross-posting, but it appears this topic has
grown include many lists so I can't come up with an alternative!

Secondly, a huge thanks to Carol, James and a large number of others
(who shall remain unnamed until they should decide to join the public
discussion) who have given me direct input on their personal thoughts,
outside of the mailing lists.

I have received a flood of suggestions regarding approaches when the
intent is to follow the 25% rule, and additionally regarding how one
might go about appeasing a USGBC LEED model reviewer when attempting to
document a lower figure. My impression up until this point, based on
colleagues' experience/advice, has been that attempting to substantiate
anything less than 25% process loads would be a futile task and would be
flatly rejected. As a result I never really considered this to be an
option available to us LEED energy modelers. I now understand that for
many, documenting something less than 25% has proven a feasible, if
occasionally exhaustive, task.

When the intent is to follow the 25% baseline process load prescriptive
requirement, I have been exposed (again outside of the lists) to a
surprising number of unique viewpoints and seemingly legitimate
approaches which have led to successfully reviewed LEED model
submissions for others.

Among the approaches to build the process loads to 25% are:

- Adding a single direct internal/external load to the project
electrical meter in addition to the designed space equipment loads -
this approach avoids additional internal heat gains.

- Adding additional or redefining designed space equipment
loads, adding internal heat sources. If and when these additional loads
should result in too many unmet cooling hours in the proposed model,
there are two basic approaches:

o Specify larger system cooling capacities and/or airflows

o Allow those systems cooling capacities/airflows to auto-size

- Keeping the designed space equipment loads without adding any
further, but modifying their utilization schedules to increase space
equipment usage during non-peak cooling hours - this of course adds heat
to the models, but avoids unmet cooling hours due to clashes with
proposed system cooling capacities.

I sincerely hope Carol and others will not misunderstand... Myself and
others do not wish to "game the system," but we seem to have a variety
of viewpoints as to what the intent is for the 25% rule.

If it may help and add to the discussion, my personal opinion leading up
to this inquiry has been that the default 25% rule exists simultaneously
as a means of normalizing the "difficulty level" of attaining LEED EAc1
points for projects with various actual process loads. Perhaps at some
point in time, somebody decided it would be unfair for someone designing
a LEED Platinum toolshed with zero process loads to have an easier time
of it than some poor sucker trying to get some EAc1 credits for an
automotive manufacturing facility with immense process loads?

I will unfortunately be unable to participate in or respond to this
topic of discussion for some time as I will be away from my inbox. I
very much look forward to gaining a better understanding of how we as a
group might come to agree on a "best practice" for this issue. If
anyone should currently have access to a relevant CIR that would
probably be very useful.

A humble thanks again to everyone,

NICK CATON, E.I.T

Nick-Caton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 805

My apologies also for cross-posting. Bldg-rate does not know me and I simply
do not have time to correct that right now.

First, please, please all of you, keep this sort of discussion on line where
it needs to be! I can't imagine why it would go offline for any other reason
except for two: people are afraid they might say something *wrong, or people
are afraid someone or some organization might in some way get back at
them.*I, for one, refuse to live like that. It's possible that every
one of you is
smarter than me, but I think we all make mistakes and have concerns. So be
it.

Second, wow it's a day of lists for me, I no longer have to worry about
gaming the system in that I am no longer a project engineer. I am very clear
that I do not ever intentionally do it myself on any of my projects. I meet
the technical requirements that are placed before me with as much integrity
as possible.

As do all of you.

Please speak up and don't be afraid of anyone or any organization.

Personal regards to all of you,

Carol

cmg750's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-05
Reputation: 0