Comments on: Clarifying the Confusing Calculations for Zero Energy Buildings https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/ Building science knowledge, HVAC design, & fun Mon, 05 Oct 2015 06:17:54 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 By: Kyle Anders https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8631 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 06:17:54 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8631 Great article Alison, thanks
Great article Alison, thanks for covering this issue. I’m in Ontario, and our national HBA is planning to roll out a Zero Energy labeling program. The pilot program currently does not distinguish between site and source energy, but rather treats all energy the same on a site basis: 1 kWh of electricity equals 1 kWh (equivalent) of natural gas. Applying energy conversion factors like what the DOE is prescribing I feel would be more sensible. Otherwise homes using natural gas for space heating (currently the cheapest heating source in most regions)end up needing to install a lot more PV, since the extra source energy that PV offsets goes unrewarded.

]]> By: Kyle Anders https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8632 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 02:17:54 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8632 Great article Alison, thanks
Great article Alison, thanks for covering this issue. I’m in Ontario, and our national HBA is planning to roll out a Zero Energy labeling program. The pilot program currently does not distinguish between site and source energy, but rather treats all energy the same on a site basis: 1 kWh of electricity equals 1 kWh (equivalent) of natural gas. Applying energy conversion factors like what the DOE is prescribing I feel would be more sensible. Otherwise homes using natural gas for space heating (currently the cheapest heating source in most regions)end up needing to install a lot more PV, since the extra source energy that PV offsets goes unrewarded.

]]> By: Kevin Salazar https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8625 Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:49:22 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8625 In reply to Dan Dean.

I’m in agreement with you Dan
I’m in agreement with you Dan. The owners should not be responsible for the utility factors and the math doesn’t need to be calculated as such. It would appear the “net” zero energy buildings would compromise their profits unless they eliminated their expenses. I wish the DOE wouldn’t remove the word “net” from their favorite term, “zero energy building” because that is misleading. There will never be a zero energy building unless we shut down all sources of power including renewables and just bask in the sunlight. I commented on LinkedIn and compared the words compromise and improvise for that reason. You landed on the bullseye with your comment and I commend you for that and hope others will too. The 2030 challenge isn’t about reducing expenses for the utilities, or invent a new Math calculation or even make politically correct statements or align out grammar for the PRC and Utilities. It is about not compromising our environmental conditions by wasting energy and producing greenhouse gases. My recommendation is to approach owners and improvise their consumption first and then make it profitable for the property owners who are willing to invest in this worthwhile endeavor with the utility companies and create an IRP for a city or town that gives a profit to the property owners while eliminating future expenses forthright utilities which will (as always) be passed on the the customers.

]]> By: Kevin Salazar https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8626 Fri, 02 Oct 2015 22:49:22 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8626 I’m in agreement with you Dan
I’m in agreement with you Dan. The owners should not be responsible for the utility factors and the math doesn’t need to be calculated as such. It would appear the "net" zero energy buildings would compromise their profits unless they eliminated their expenses. I wish the DOE wouldn’t remove the word "net" from their favorite term, "zero energy building" because that is misleading. There will never be a zero energy building unless we shut down all sources of power including renewables and just bask in the sunlight. I commented on LinkedIn and compared the words compromise and improvise for that reason. You landed on the bullseye with your comment and I commend you for that and hope others will too. The 2030 challenge isn’t about reducing expenses for the utilities, or invent a new Math calculation or even make politically correct statements or align out grammar for the PRC and Utilities. It is about not compromising our environmental conditions by wasting energy and producing greenhouse gases. My recommendation is to approach owners and improvise their consumption first and then make it profitable for the property owners who are willing to invest in this worthwhile endeavor with the utility companies and create an IRP for a city or town that gives a profit to the property owners while eliminating future expenses forthright utilities which will (as always) be passed on the the customers.

]]> By: Allison Bailes https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8623 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:18:40 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8623 In reply to Christopher Retzler.

You’re right, Christopher. I
You’re right, Christopher. I should have said the home needs to export 6,000 kWh, not produce 6,000 kWh. If it uses some of the PV-generated electricity on-site, then it would actually need to produce more than 6,000 kWh.

I went back and re-read Dan’s comment, and I can’t tell if “the lack of off-site credit for the renewable energy that is both generated and consumed on-site” is what he was getting at. Maybe I’m just not getting it myself, but I don’t see how you can give more credit than offsetting all of the source energy.

]]> By: Christopher Retzler https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8621 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:38:34 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8621 In reply to Allison Bailes.

Allison, from what I am
Allison, from what I am reading it looks like your example home would not have to generate 6,000 kWh of electricity on-site, but would have to export said 6,000 kWh. Is that correct? If so, then I think what Dan is getting at is the lack of off-site credit for the renewable energy that is both generated and consumed on-site.

]]> By: Allison Bailes https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8624 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:18:40 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8624 You’re right, Christopher. I
You’re right, Christopher. I should have said the home needs to export 6,000 kWh, not produce 6,000 kWh. If it uses some of the PV-generated electricity on-site, then it would actually need to produce more than 6,000 kWh.

I went back and re-read Dan’s comment, and I can’t tell if "the lack of off-site credit for the renewable energy that is both generated and consumed on-site" is what he was getting at. Maybe I’m just not getting it myself, but I don’t see how you can give more credit than offsetting all of the source energy.

]]> By: Christopher Retzler https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8622 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:38:34 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8622 Allison, from what I am
Allison, from what I am reading it looks like your example home would not have to generate 6,000 kWh of electricity on-site, but would have to export said 6,000 kWh. Is that correct? If so, then I think what Dan is getting at is the lack of off-site credit for the renewable energy that is both generated and consumed on-site.

]]> By: Allison Bailes https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8629 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:37:26 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8629 In reply to David Butler.

Indeed you are correct, David
Indeed you are correct, David. I thought about going into that issue but decided against it. As you say, the source energy conversion factors vary from place to place and time to time. Electricity generation in the Pacific Northwest, for example, will be significantly lower than the 3.15 national average because of their high percentage of hydropower.

]]> By: Allison Bailes https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings/#comment-8619 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 22:33:10 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=clarifying-the-confusing-calculations-for-zero-energy-buildings#comment-8619 In reply to Dan Dean.

Dan, I think you haven’t
Dan, I think you haven’t fully understood the calculations above. They do exactly what you’re saying. By multiplying the exported energy (produced on-site by PV modules) by the source energy conversion factor, you’re canceling out the losses from the power plant inefficiency, transmission & distribution, and the other things that increase the amount of source energy needed.

See my example in the article. If a home imports 6,000 kWh of electricity generated at a power plant, it would need to produce 6,000 kWh of electricity on-site. Unless I misunderstood your comment, I believe that’s exactly what you’re saying is needed. Right?

]]>