Technical Support Document: Development of the Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 Schools--30% Energy Savings

Pless, Shanti; Torcellini, P.; Long, Nicholas

doi:10.2172/918448

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prototypical buildings were created, and then simulated in the eight climate zones covered in Standard 90.1-2004. The 30% AEDG series used 15 cities to represent the climate zones , Liu et al 2007, Pless et al 2007, Jiang et al 2008. This report uses 16 cities selected by DOE in establishing a new set of benchmark buildings.…”

Section: Evaluation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Small Office Buildings

Thornton¹,

Wang²,

Huang³

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building Technologies (BT) Program. Buildings account for over 40% of total energy use and over 70% of electricity use in the United States (DOE 2009b). To reduce building energy usage, DOE, through its BT Program, established a strategic goal to "create technologies and design approaches that enable net-zero energy buildings (NZEB) at low incremental cost by 2025". Supporting DOE's goal directly, the project objective is to develop a package of energy efficiency measures (EEMs) that demonstrates the feasibility to achieve 50% energy savings for small office buildings with a simple payback of 5 years or less. The 50% goal is to reduce site energy usage relative to buildings that are built to just meet the minimum requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 (ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 2004) before using renewable energy.PNNL performed the research, analysis, and documentation, referred to as the Technical Support Document (TSD), with inputs from many other contributors and sources of information. An early draft version of the report was circulated to industry experts, practicioners, and another National Laboratory, for in-depth peer reviews. Appendix B documents the review comments and PNNL's responses. For use in this analysis, PNNL developed a prototypical 20,000 ft² (1,858 m 2 ) small office building model that just meets the requirements of Standard 90.1-2004. This is based on the small office prototype that PNNL developed for the 30% Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small Office Buildings . PNNL used the state-of-art energy simulation program -EnergyPlus-to determine the energy savings provided by the package of EEMs. The prototype building is simulated in the same eight climate zones adopted by International Energy Code Council (IECC) and ASHRAE in development of the prevailing energy codes and standards. The climate zones are further divided into moist and dry regions, represented by 16 climate locations. The TSD provides the modeling parameters used in the simulations and the energy and cost-effectiveness results.The advanced EEMs include energy efficiency enhancements to the following building elements:• Exterior wall and roof insulation The TSD report shows that the recommended EEM package achieves a minimum of 50% energy savings in all 16 climate locations, and a national-weighted average energy savings of 56.6% over the United States. Cost-effectiveness analysis to implement the EEMs shows a weighted-average simple payback of 6.8 years. These results are summarized in the table below. In addition, this report provides results for an alternative EEM package substituting a variable air volume (VAV) heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. This alternative package achieves at least 50% energy savings in 7 of the16 climate locations, corresponding to a national-weighted average savings of 48.5%. The VAV EEM ii package has a national weighted-average simple payback of 8.6 years. Other packages of EEMs may also achieve 50% energy savings; this report does not consider all alternatives but ra...

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Small Office Buildings

Thornton¹,

Wang²,

Huang³

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 30% AEDG series used 15 climate locations to represent the eight climate zones defined in the Standard 90.1-2004 Liu et al 2006;Liu et al 2007;Pless et al 2007;Jiang et al 2008;Bonnema et al 2010). In this report, 16 representative cities were selected (Table 2.1 in Section 2.3).…”

Section: Energy Savings Evaluation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Quick-Service Restaurants

Zhang¹,

Schrock²,

Fisher³

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building Technologies Program (DOE/BTP). According to DOE, buildings account for over 40% of total energy use and over 70% of electricity use in the United States. To reduce building energy usage, DOE/BTP established a strategic goal to significantly improve the energy efficiency of new and existing commercial buildings across the nation.In direct support of DOE's goal, the objective of this work is to develop a package of energy efficiency measures (EEMs) that demonstrates the feasibility of achieving at least 50% energy savings for quick-service restaurants (QSRs) with a simple payback of five years or less. As defined, the 50% goal involves reducing site energy usage in all eight U.S. climate zones, relative to buildings constructed to just meet minimal code-compliant requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90. 2 ) QSR building model that was based on actual floor plans in prototypical QSR design drawings. PNNL used EnergyPlus, a state-of-art energy simulation program, to determine the energy savings provided by the EEM package. The prototype building was analyzed in all eight U.S. climate zones that were further divided into moist, dry, and marine regions in which 16 representative climate cities were identified. The TSD establishes the baseline energy use by end-use category in a typical QSR, and provides the site energy and energy cost savings from implementation of the recommended EEMs. Finally, this TSD provides an estimate of the incremental first costs and simple payback years for an energy-efficient QSR in various climate locations. Table ES.1 summarizes the recommended EEMs for QSRs. Implementation of these EEMs can achieve a weighted-average energy savings of 45% across the nation, ranging from 41% to 52% by climate zone. Cost-effectiveness analysis to implement the EEMs shows a payback period ranging from 1.5 years to 3.5 years, depending on the climate location. These results are summarized for the 16 representative cities in Table ES.2.The project goal was to enable QSRs to achieve whole-building energy savings of at least 50% across all eight U.S. climate zones. Although we found that a national-weighted-average energy savings of 45% can be achieved, only the two coldest climates were able to reach the 50% energy-saving target. The key reason is that QSR is a special building type in which energy use is driven by very intensive process loads (i.e., the energy used for food preparation and storage). Process loads constitute 45% to 65% of wholebuilding energy consumption in a typical QSR. We have achieved significant energy savings in this area with optimized kitchen ventilation system and innovative food preparation/storage technologies ( Figure ES.1), but technologies are not yet available (from multiple vendors) to allow us to attain the 50% energy savings goal in all climate zones. If the process loads are removed from Figure ES.1, the energy savings from the building-related components are well beyond the 50% energy saving goal, ranging from 55% in warm climates to 65% in cold climates. i...

show abstract

“…1-20041- (ASHRAE 2004a. The baseline models are constructed in a manner similar to what was used in the previous TSDs (Hale et al 2008a;Hale et al 2008b;Jarnagin et al 2006;Liu et al 2006;Pless et al 2007), and in compliance with • Glazing amounts (window area and skylight area) are allowed to vary between the baseline and low-energy models. We thereby demonstrate the effects of optimizing window and skylight areas for daylighting and thermal considerations.…”

Section: Ashrae 901-2004 Baselinementioning

confidence: 99%

General Merchandise 50% Energy Savings Technical Support Document

Hale¹,

Leach²,

Hirsch³

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are indebted to a number of retailers and building industry professionals for taking the time to review our analysis assumptions and earlier versions of this report. Jim Kirk of A&P Grocery Stores, Kathy Loftus of Whole Foods, and Scott Williams of Target, all members of the Retailer Energy Alliance, commented on our prototype and energy design measure (EDM) model assumptions based on their companies' experiences and standard practices. Don Zerrip, Ben Butler, and H. J. Enck of CxGBS; Tim A. Speller of Speller Energy Consulting; and Thomas H. Phoenix of Moser Mayer Phoenix Associates reviewed an earlier draft of this report.We extend our thanks to our colleagues Larry Brackney and Kristin Field for conducting formal internal reviews of this document, and to Stefanie Woodward for editing assistance.Several other National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) colleagues provided valuable guidance and information during the modeling process, either directly or through their past work. Ian Doebber and Michael Deru contributed insights gained through their work with grocery store owners and retailers. Jennifer Scheib and Rob Guglielmetti provided electric lighting and daylighting EDM data. We would also like to thank Don Shirey of the Florida Solar Energy Commission, and Hugh Henderson of CDH Energy Corporation for responding to several specific questions; and Merle McBride acting on behalf of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Envelope Subcommittee for providing recent cost data for mass wall constructions.Tens of thousands of EnergyPlus simulations were run for this report. This would not have been possible without the support of the NREL High Performance Computing Center managed by Wesley Jones and Jim Albin.Finally, a number of our colleagues in the Commercial Buildings Group helped set up and run our analysis and results extraction routines. We would especially like to thank Dan Macumber, Nicholas Long, Eric Bonnema, and Kyle Benne for programming assistance; and Brent Griffith, Dan Macumber, Kyle Benne, Michael Deru, and Ian Doebber for sharing their computing resources.ii Executive SummaryThis Technical Support Document (TSD) was developed by the Commercial Buildings Group at NREL, under the direction of the DOE Building Technologies Program. It documents technical analysis and design guidance for general merchandise stores to achieve whole-building energy savings of at least 50% over ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and represents a step toward determining how to provide design guidance for aggressive energy savings targets.This report:• Documents the modeling and integrated analysis methods used to identify cost-effective sets of recommendations for different locations.• Demonstrates sets of recommendations that meet or exceed the 50% goal. There are 16 sets of recommendations, one for each climate zone location.• Establishes methodology for providing a family of solutions, as opposed to a single solution, that meet the 50% goal as a means of exploring the relative importance of specific design strategies.• Demonstrates the ...

show abstract

Technical Support Document: Development of the Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 Schools--30% Energy Savings

Cited by 19 publications

References 3 publications

Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Small Office Buildings

Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Small Office Buildings

Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Quick-Service Restaurants

General Merchandise 50% Energy Savings Technical Support Document

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About