High Performing Buildings - Spring 2009 - (Page 61) e n e r G y u s e B e F o r e , a F t e r r e n ovat i o n While the home was purchased and occupied starting in mid 2006, construction was taking place until the end of 2007. 2008 was the first full year of data after renovations were completed. The most recent 12 months of bills were examined to see how they compared to the model. during that period, weather and house operating conditions were as follows: 5,448 HDD Base 65°F (Boston weather site 5,596 HDD; this year was 3% lower); Two occupants (both adults) living in the house; Interior thermostat setpoint 69°F winter/74°F summer; and Exhaust fan in second floor central bathroom continuously runs (~50 cfm). The resulting energy use is shown on the bar graph, “Energy Use Before, After Renovation.” It shows the annual gas and electric use (in terms of source energy), with the unrenovated house, Benchmark and model for comparison. The utility bill data showed even greater savings (54%) than what was modeled (44%). The graph shows that gas use was less than predicted (614 therms vs. 731 therms); space heat and domestic hot water were provided by gas. Similarly, electrical use was less than predicted (3,865 kWh versus 5,694 kWh simulation). The air-conditioning use — and therefore, resulting load — were lower than expected. One final step was to examine In addition, the drainage mat under the finish slab was turned up at the base of the masonry chimney; the testing showed that soil gasses could be pulled from the space between the two slabs to the interior, so it was capped off with concrete and firerated caulk. After addressing these worst leakage points, the house met the original airtightness target. Predicted Performance vs. actual Performance One criticism of “green” buildings — which definitely has some merit — points to a lack of consistent demonstrated energy savings in these buildings. Analyzing the energy usage — for instance, simply collecting utility bills — is an excellent validation of performance. In addition, it allows comparisons between the computer energy simulations and actual performance. Submetered usage would provide even greater insight, but requires greater investment in instrumentation. The utility bills for the past three years are shown. Gas was billed monthly, but electricity was only billed every two months, reducing available resolution. Heating degree days and cooling degree day data (NOAA data for Boston weather station) are also plotted for reference. Predicted Performance Energy simulations of several variations of this house were run before and after the renovation. They were broken up by principal loads — heating, cooling, domestic hot water, and lighting/appliance/miscellaneous electrical loads. The data were compiled in million Btu/year of source energy — i.e., taking into account the energy consumed to generate electricity plus transmission losses (roughly a factor of three). spring 2009 HigH Performing Buildings 61
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.