1 / 17

Energy Analysis Review of Implications

Energy Analysis Review of Implications. Jon McHugh, Sr. Project Mgr. The H ESCHONG M AHONE G ROUP for Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Codes & Standards Program. Residential Energy Model. 1761 SF house with equal glazing distribution in each direction

sun
Download Presentation

Energy Analysis Review of Implications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Energy AnalysisReview of Implications Jon McHugh, Sr. Project Mgr. The HESCHONG MAHONE GROUP forPacific Gas & Electric Co.Codes & Standards Program

  2. Residential Energy Model • 1761 SF house with equal glazing distribution in each direction • Hourly energy values from TDV research version of MICROPAS • A/C and Heat Pump Efficiency adjusted with respect to ambient temperature • DHW loads allocated to 4 load profiles from PG&E load survey data • weekday vs. weekend • summer vs winter

  3. Residential TDV Energy Costs • Hourly energy multiplied by hourly energy costs for all 8,760 hours of the year • 30 Year PV, 3% real discount rate • Three energy sources: • Electricity • Natural gas • Propane • Multiplies by hourly TDV costs for five CA climate zones: 3 (Oakland), 6 (Long Beach), 13 (Fresno), 14 (China Lake) 16 (Shasta)

  4. Fresno Residential Measures

  5. Shasta Residential Measures

  6. OaklandResidentialMeasures

  7. OaklandResidentialMeasures

  8. Residential Conclusions • TDV costing increased the value of all efficiency measures considered • Electricity more expensive when very hot or very cold • Natural gas and propane more expensive in winter than summer • Benefit of switching to fuel less for propane than natural gas

  9. Nonresidential Energy Results • Same energy results from earlier work (1999 Dollar Based Standards project) • 6 protoype buildings • Typical schedules for each building type (divergence from ACM rules) • DOE-2 model not EnergyPro • Hourly energy results multiplied by TDV energy costs for 8,760 h/yr • TDV costs: 15 year PV at 3% real discount rate

  10. Fresno Nonresidential Measures

  11. Fresno Nonresidential Measures

  12. Nonresidential Conclusions • Results are dependent on building type • TDV results for TES inverse of traditional flat costing • Value of gas cooling is increased • Results for heating measures affected by Fuel type (Nat gas vs. Propane) • Greater value for A/C efficiency • Lighting LPD valuation sensitive to schedule (occupancy)

  13. Residential TDV - further work • TDV duct efficiency • Refined water heater model • SEER to EIR conversion • Heat pump sizing - resistance strip contribution to winter peak • Thermostat schedules - especially for heat pumps

  14. Nonresidential TDV - further work • ACM revisions • Equipment curves • SEER to EIR conversion based on curves • Occupancy specific schedules • Add TES and Gas Cooling • Add Photovoltaics and Solar Heating • Peer review of equipment curves • Obtain/develop part load curves • Revisit equipment specific curves • Occupancy sensors vs time clocks • Persistence of measures

  15. TDV Web Page

  16. TDV Web Page • http://www.h-m-g.com/TDV/index.htm • Reports • Dollar-Based Performance Standards (1999) • TDV Summary Report (2000) • Software • ResTDV.xls • NonresTDV.xls • Comment form

  17. Comments/Suggestions • Gary Fernstrom, PG&E(415) 973-6054gbf1@pge.com • Douglas Mahone, HMG(916) 962-7001dmahone@h-m-g.com

More Related