Hello
I have a LEED 2009 HC project with DES CHP and tough review. Is it true that the only way to satisfy the requirements for EAp2/EAc1, using the Aug 12, 2010 Guidelines Option 2, with eQuest is to run the proposed eQuest model without CHP and account for the CHP contribution to Proposed building energy (Electric, Thermal and Fuel) via Appendix D arithmetic and account for the CHP_ELECBLDG and ProposedBLDGFUEL as a Proposed energy line item in Table EAp2-5?
I have, in the past included the CHP in the eQuest model by scaling the CHP size (kW) based on, CHP_ELECBLDG , using annual average efficiency and flat engine curve and run the CHP in the eQuest model (track thermal); then entering the simulation results on Table EAp2-5 as electric and fuel line items for each energy use. I have used this approach successfully in the past on a certified building. Was the reviewer for that project just sloppy?
With gratitude for your anticipated response,
Melissa
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
May 4, 2018 - 10:16 am
It is hard to say anything about what the reviewer is seeing (or not) without all the specifics.
Prior reviews do not establish a precedence and individual reviewers are people not machines, so the results can somewhat vary.
The two methods you describe sound very similar. The biggest difference is that you are not showing your calculations when you do it within eQUEST. Perhaps the reviewer would have a higher confidence if they saw the calcs. Is the result substantially different with the two methods? If it is then I might spend some time figuring out why because they should produce similar results.