We have a new plant using NGV as a fuel to fry potato chip in Thailand. The exact similar technology was used in another plant in China (same potato chip brand) which is already LEED gold certified. The energy cost saving of this plant come from the energy fuel cost. The proposed using NGV, while the baseline uses diesel. Since cost of NGV is 60% of diesel, 40% saving energy cost is achieved. This method was awared for our plant in China with EAc1 of 15 points.
Now, we use the same method in Thailand but the reviewer reject out method by saying that the fuel types of both models must be the same. The reviewer also refers our case to CIR 2301 but the case is related us. So, What should we do? Can we ask the reviewer and refer our case to the result from past sucess project? Should we submit the formal CIR and refer to our past project? Can anyone refer us the the exsiting CIR to defend our case?
Thanks
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
May 8, 2015 - 11:55 am
Just because something was awarded on one project does not mean that it will be awarded on another. In general 90.1 and LEED avoids comparing different fuels. For non-process energy uses the fossil fuel must always be the same in both models, so it makes sense that it should be the same for process loads too. Most of the time fuel switching does not save any energy use, just cost. Sounds to me as if the first reviewer made a mistake and should not have awarded the cost savings. Without knowing the details it is difficult to say for sure.
Also the baseline for comparison can change when you are in a different location. I assume that you submitted this as some sort of exceptional calculation where you had to justify the baseline. The baseline is dependent on standard industry practice in that location.
Based on what you have written, my opinion is that you should not have been awarded points based on comparing different fuels. Using a cheaper fuel is just plain common sense and should not be rewarded in LEED. Basing your claim on the fact that it was awarded before will not even come close to being enough justification for making the same mistake again. I know it is not consistent but it also does not make sense to continue to make the same mistake over and over for the sake of consistency.
Jatuwat Varodompun
DrGreen Building Soultion
26 thumbs up
May 8, 2015 - 12:08 pm
Thanks Marcus
So, if I try to do the energy saving measures based in equipment efficiency. Should I model baseline and proposed with identical process load first. Then use hand calculation or excel to show the exceptional method saving or should I do the proposed model with process load saving embeded in the model. For the latter seems make more sensem since the process load is also tiding with HVAC size.
Please note that if the models does not have identical process load the energy simulation results will show the saving of process energy directly. So, when we fillout the data in LEED EAp2 template, we have fillout the process load to indentical first (if not identilcal the credit compliance will show "N") and fill-out the saving in section 1.7 later. Energy sim report will be different from what we fillout since the process energy saving will be shown directly. Is this OK?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
May 8, 2015 - 12:17 pm
Since this process load will affect other energy end uses you need to do the calculations in the modeling software to account for those impacts. I would suggest you do the additional model. So the baseline and proposed would have baseline process load and then revise the proposed and submit the results as an exceptional calculation.
If you do the above you should not have the form issue you raise. Be sure to separate on different rows the other process loads which remain identical. If you lump it all together it will be potentially confusing for the reviewer.
Jatuwat Varodompun
DrGreen Building Soultion
26 thumbs up
May 8, 2015 - 1:04 pm
In order to demostrate the energy conservation measures, one method is to show "the efficiency measure is not standard practice for a similar newly constructed facility by providing a recently published document". What is the definition of "published document"? Can it be a brochure or letter from the suppler indicate the saving compare to the conventional practise?
Many thanks
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
May 8, 2015 - 2:21 pm
Usually a document published by some sort of independent organization. It might be a trade association. A letter from the supplier could help but would likely be somewhat suspect by itself since they have a definite conflict of interest. So much depends on the specific strategies being pursued and the degree to which they are uncommon. The more uncommon the strategy the harder it is to justify a baseline most of the time. For example, using a high efficiency boiler for a process load would be common and easy to justify a baseline (90.1 minimum).
Jatuwat Varodompun
DrGreen Building Soultion
26 thumbs up
May 8, 2015 - 9:23 pm
Thanks so much