Hi All,
Please share your answers to/views on the following queries.
1. How significant is the impact of location - different continents/countries - of a building on its energy demand? You may assume these are similar to each other on all aspects except for their location. Please share any examples, if possible, e.g. Sweden versus Texas.
2. Could you cite examples of cities where the natural weather, for maximum possible days, is comfortable for humans. So, cities where least possible heating and cooling is required.
Regards,
Jeetendra.India.
General query - impact of location on energy demand
Sep 24, 2014
Jeetendra,
For item 2, I suggest that you review a table of heating and cooling degree days. These tables are published in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals and include cities from all over the world. The cities with the lowest of each will form the answer to your question.
For item 1, I recommend that you revise your question as it is not possible to build the same building in every climate. Different countries/cities have building codes that would restrict you from doing so. But if you want to have some fun, you could take the prototypical building models and simulate them for the different cities you are interested in. http://www.energycodes.gov/commercial-prototype-building-models
--
Shanta Tucker, PE, LEED AP BD+C, ASHRAE BEMP
Associate Director
Atelier Ten
Environmental Design Consultants + Lighting Designers
45 East 20th Street, 4th Floor
New York NY 10003
T +1 (212) 254 4500 x 210
F +1 (212) 254 1259
shanta.tucker at atelierten.com
www.atelierten.com
In addition to Shanta's comments, consider that "comfort" is not the same around the world. I spoke with a colleague not long ago who indicated that 30C was acceptable for many buildings in Pune, India. That is not true for most of North America! Other countries will probably also have differing comfort expectations.
James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
www.buildingperformanceteam.com
Energy Analysis, Commissioning & Training Services
1631 Acacia Drive, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 USA
616 450 8653
If you do not already know about this- there is a weather related comfort
tool called climate consultant that you may want to look into. It uses EPW
files and shows general passive design strategies effectiveness.
http://www.energy-design-tools.aud.ucla.edu/climate-consultant/request-climate-consultant.php
*??Jeremiah D. Crossett ** | Senior Analyst **| **LEED Green Associate *
www.phasechange.com
*??120 E. Pritchard St. | Asheboro, NC 27203 ?? | Mobile 503-688-8951
*
I would recommend referring following research papers on comfort benchmark
worldwide. These are available on Elsevier:
*Comfort assessment in the context of sustainable buildings: Comparison of
simplified and detailed human thermal sensation methods*
*Thermal comfort conditions in sustainable buildings e Results of a
worldwide **survey of users? perceptions*
Hi All,
Thank you for the responses.
Brian: your reply shows a comparison which I was looking for, although the data you shared seems different from what's available from EIA and Eurostat.
Jim: Thanks for pointing out the "comfort expectations" aspect. This adds a dimension that seems difficult to analyze - gap analysis for different locations. Please share if you can suggest any source for comfort benchmarks.
Shanta: for conciseness, I'd skipped what you pointed out, but sure this has to be accounted for. Thanks for pointing this out. Also, for suggesting the ASHRAE tables and the link.
Jeremiah: didn't know about the link. Thanks. Shall try checking that soon.
Well, I would like to ask you the following question(the reason for my earlier questions):
Do you think our understanding of the impact of location on energy and emissions, esp due to natural factors, can be used for planning where should we build cities in future, to fight global warming?
For now, just a no/yes is fine.
Looking forward to your views.
Sincerely,
Jeetendra.
Jeetendra,
My opinion regarding your question: No (Impact of location on energy is not specially relevant.)
I wonder about your assumptions: I?ve seen sources which say that the globe has not warmed in over a decade. This is different than many climate models? predictions and suggests that we don?t understand very well the impact of humans on the globe?s climate. One of my ardent wishes is that the climate discussion would become more scientific and less political. At the moment, it seems hard to filter data from polemic.
I think it is very important to use resources wisely for a variety of reasons other than ?climate change?, but principal among them is to promote human flourishing. Energy is a GOOD thing and even has a strong correlation to health and prosperity; limiting it?s availability, as has been part of recent discussion in the US, for many parts of the world might mean that they remain without refrigeration or reasonable heating and cooling ? not so good for those people?s health and well-being. Wasteful use or polluting are a different matter than thoughtful use. I haven?t thought this through in great detail, but it seems that wise use of energy in one country makes more available for others at lower cost. I like that thought.
James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
www.buildingperformanceteam.com
Energy Analysis, Commissioning & Training Services
1631 Acacia Drive, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 USA
616 450 8653
Hi All,
Javed: Thank you for sharing the publication titles. Shall check soon.
Jim: I assume you are following the developments closely - http://c40.org/blog_posts/global-mayors-compact-shows-unity-and-ambition-to-tackle-climate-change. But I agree, we should be scientific in our approach. I often think of an argument - Can we handle the consequences if we are wrong about ignoring global warming? But, even if I go by the perspective of energy only, the question remains valid (PS). If emissions was the reason for your "No", please let me know your answer now. Besides, do send your comments on what Brian shared earlier as it shows that location does have an impact, if I am not missing something there.
Sincerely,
Jeetendra.
PS: Can our understanding of the impact of location on energy, esp due to natural factors, be used for planning where should we build cities in future, to conserve energy?
I'm not directly on topic here, but I think the interesting question from a
planning perspective is more like this:
Where can human settlement be done most inexpensively in a
carbon-constrained world? I.e. When you combine the variety of
weather/climate drivers on energy consumption with the availability of
carbon-free energy supplies, where are the least expensive places to
develop?
For example, if you looked at Labrador and Newfoundland, you'd say they
look relatively energy intensive (brutally cold, long winters), but they
have cheap hydropower, so building there might make some sense. Hot dry
desert cities (like Phoenix) have high cooling energy intensities, but
their solar resource is excellent. I think this partially gets at part of
Jim's argument -- it's not the energy that's the issue, it's the negative
externalities (carbon emissions included) that are the issue. You might get
a misleading result if you don't include the carbon-free energy
availability dimension in your analysis.
If you combine a map you could generate from a passive energy screening
tool with a map of carbon-free energy availability you could come up with
something fairly compelling.
Dear Jeetendra,
You may be interested in this paper: http://www.bso14.org/BSO14_Papers/BSO14_Paper_071.pdf, where wide range of building forms are compared in all 17 ASHRAE 90.1 climate zones. Figure 5 in the paper may be a direct answer to your question 1 (and possibly 2), where you can see (office) buildings consumes on average 1/4 -1/3 of energy in temperate climates compared to the same buildings in the subarctic (zone 8) and the very hot (zone 1) climates.
Please note that this study was not designed for assessing the impact of climate, and it has only considered office buildings of the modern construction type. There are many complex factors in play; so you should not take those numbers literally. However, the importance of climate is well known in this community, and it should not be difficult to find literature on this subject. Come to think of it, looking up ?zero carbon buildings? and where they?ve been realized, may help you find answers to question 2.
Cheers,
Yi Zhang
Energy Simulation Solutions Ltd.
Further off topic, but shouldn?t the question of energy use in city planning/human settlement in the future be focused on increased density or adaptive reuse in established, accessible locations rather than the further build out of virgin land regardless of how well-suited it might be for current ?sustainable? measures? It?s fairly well-supported that we do not have the same amount of traditional fuel sources available for use (or misuse, depending on your views). Why aren?t we asking ourselves how well-suited any given place on the planet is for meeting the current and projected energy needs using available technology at a given capital cost? To me, it?s counterintuitive to construct new cities in order to fight global warming. I?ve yet to see a large scale commercial/residential development, no matter how sustainable the technology and planning, actually be carbon neutral when embodied energy is considered. The analogy of buying something you don?t need at a 50% discount comes to mind.
Hi All,
Dr. Zhang: Thank you for sharing the publication and for the search suggestion. Both seem useful. Shall try checking details soon. Besides, since I do not want to assume your ans please reply to my question(Ref: my email on 25th, ...planning ...cities in future), if possible.
Justin: you are spot-on about "carbon-free energy". That's why my original question(in the ref above) had "impact of location on energy and emissions". The possibility of using renewables - low/zero emissions - at specific locations would make them more attractive. Besides, of course, the economic aspect you mentioned is also important.
Joel: Your reply seems to be very much on-topic, if I am not missing something(!). Your point on existing places being more important is logical. That could be one of the reasons why it seems counter intuitive to you, or it hasn't been seen. But, the intent is not to compare only virgin land with existing cities. The idea is to analyze the attractiveness of different locations from the standpoint of energy and emissions (based on published data - existing cities - to start with). As I foresee, to search for any suitable, as yet, uninhabited places also, we would need to understand the characteristics of existing (attractive) cities first. Besides, of course, for building a city at a new location we would need to understand its linkage/transactions with the outside world. Possibly, some forum members with deep expertise in urban planning could offer some insights.
Thanks to everyone for the responses.
Looking forward to further points and perspectives!
Sincerely,
Jeetendra.