Hi Users,
In a project, the client wants to use a cheap local fuel (bamboo pellet, rapidly renewable) to reduce annual energy cost and score high on EAc1. I am wondering if in baseline, the fuel must also be bamboo pellet or could be something else, say, natural gas, the price of which is higher per thermal unit? I do not seem to find where in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 dictates that in baseline and proposed, the fuel must be the same. Any comments are appreciated.
Thanks,
Rick, PE, LEED AP
Rick,
If you are doing Appendix G modeling for EAc1 then the energy rates are supposed to be the same for the baseline and proposed runs. See pages G-2 to G-3 of the 90.1-2004 and 2007 User?s Manuals. ?Individual building owners or designers may choose to optimize their buildings to take advantage of special rates, but building performance ratings require that the same rate be used for both runs.?
Also, page G-22 (User?s Manual) states, ?If the proposed building has electric heat so does the baseline building, and if the proposed building has gas, oil or propane (any fossil fuel), the baseline building has the same heating source.? Even though bamboo is not a ?fossil fuel?, the intent is clear that the same heating source should be used for both models.
Regards,
William Bishop, EIT, LEED(r) AP
ASHRAE Appendix G Modeling Guidelines Tables 3.1.1A and 3.1.1B give the
baseline HVAC system for each type of building. The baseline heating fuel in
all cases is either fossil fuel or electricity. I believe that a different
fuel may be used in the proposed building, if it is a purchased, renewable
fuel (such as wood pellets).
Appendix G Section 2.4 Exception says that if the renewable fuel is
site-generated or free (such as burning waste wood from packing crates),
then it cannot be modeled as a proposed fuel for the purpose of calculating
building performance.
Rob Rosen
Yes, this is a special case, a group of small houses in a resort to be LEED certified. The owner wants to make the project the most green resort in the world...so fossil fuel is in general avoided. I agree that wood pellet appears to be similar with fossil fuel, like coal, although it is not fossil and can be renewed within less than 10 years. I am still expecting an answer about baseline fuel vs. proposed fuel, shall this be:
1. wood pellet vs. wood pellet
2. electricity vs. wood pellet
3. natural gas vs. wood pellet
4. other possibilities?
It seems to me that 1 or 3 shall be more convenient to use than 2, which is, as Paul said, "risky". But if 3 is used, why natural gas, not coal or oil?
Any further comments are welcome.
Rick
I??ve been reading the bamboo-pellet discussion with some mild interest?? but it occurred to me today ?C perhaps trying to frame this as a ??heating fuel source?? within EA1 is a backwards perspective for a LEED project. If the bamboo is a renewable thermal heating source, doesn??t it kinda sound a lot more like ??on-site renewable energy sources?? EA Credit 2? If you seek and achieve credits in that manner, you get to lop such calculated energy off of your final proposed cost results under EA1 afterwards, as though the energy were free.
I advise further careful reading of EA Credit 2. The 2.2 handbook (I don??t have the v3 at hand) has a table defining specific biofuels as ??renewable-energy.?? It??s not clear based on the discussion so far where your bamboo pellets really fit in the excluded/included renewable biomass materials listings. EA Credit 2 is definitely structured (again in v2.2) to accommodate biomass fuels for the use of space heating, water heating, or electricity generation.
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
Hi All,
I have got LEED v3. It is stated that the following biofuels are considered renewable energy under EAc2 credit:
Untreated wood waste, including mill residues
Agricultural crops and waste
Animal waste and other organic waste
Landfill gas
Energy production based on the following biofuels are not eligible for this credit
......
Foresty biomass waste other than mill residue
Wood coated with paints, plastics, or formica
......
What makes the situation even more complicated is that the bamboo pellet is not producted on site, but purchased from an off-site suppplier. I would be happy if it is producted on site, but there is no enough bamboo for burning and no one work on that...
Rick
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Would cheaper fuel be credited?
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:56:40 -0500
I am guessing that if the Bamboo is not produced on site, its not really eligible for the on-site renewable energy credit. It??s (IMHO) analogous to buying renewable energy credits from an off-site wind farm or solar farm and taking credit for it as on-site generated. In reality, the fuel is not generated on site, it is being used on site. The credit is for production. .
But then again, I??m not the one reviewing this.
Vikram Sami, LEED AP