| Spournrot | Дата: Среда, 29.01.2014, 03:15 | Сообщение # 1 |
|
Группа: Гости
| There are plenty of other sources of uncertainty, so cutting it too fine in this kind of modeling does not make sense. But getting a sense of the magnitude of the differences would help us design the "ideal" tool construct.Jeff Haberl of Texas A&M has worked with the available data in Texas, and he has helped me understand the http://plane.site11.com complexities of getting these things right even when and where the data are available. Many of these can be overcome where good historical data and dispatch models are available, but they will take some well-focused work. Either of the past ASHRAE GHG Tool PC contractors, E3 or Synapse, is capable of doing this kind of work, and Jeff is also very knowledgeable about how to meet some of the challenges. There is also a need to be clear about site energy use intensity and source energy intensity, something for which Mike Deru at NREL has published reasonably good data (NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-550-38617, June 2007).The stakes are too high to be making bad or poorly informed decisions any more, so let's get something robust developed that can move us ahead toward well-informed design, retrofit, and operational decisions for buildings.
|
| |
| |
