|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page | Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online May/June 1994
Confessions of an "Addicted" Auditor
My initial reaction to the prospect of a computerized audit was
sarcastic disdain--right, a computer is going to tell me what's wrong with a
building! I joked about the computer interviewing the boiler. Around this time,
I was trading away my manual typewriter for a computer. I didn't fear the
computer, but I certainly didn't trust it.
The concept of a computerized audit appalled me. I had been through hundreds of
buildings, thousands of units, and saved millions of dollars in fuel over ten
years. Certainly no computer, or computer programmer, could improve my audits.
But after four years of this love/hate relationship, we now have respect for
each other's skills, while we are each aware of the other's misgivings. The
computer audit and I have bonded.
It's not been an easy relationship. It all began in 1988 on an XT computer that
took almost 15 minutes to process a fuel analysis and workscope. I spent an
entire evening on our first date, watching the data I entered crash time after
time.
The Energy Audit using the Queens Information Package (EA-QUIP) is approved for
use by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for multifamily dwellings, but it
can analyze other building types as well. The audit was developed by the Queens
College Center for the Biology of Natural Systems under the guidance of Len
Rodberg, using the Computerized Instrumented Residential Audit (CIRA), a
program developed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in the late 1970s which was
also used to develop the NEAT audit (see "The National Energy Audit," p. 28).
The people that made it happen, however, are Len and four auditors who crammed
it into their computers and fought with error codes and crashes for the better
part of 1989.
The software cannot and will not replace a good auditor. Rather, it backs up
the decisions of a good auditor. The user inputs building data, and then the
program models the estimated fuel usage of a building--assuming that
description and compares it to the building's actual usage. The data entered
into the model includes
General. Address, terrain, shielding, heated space, floors, common
lighting, air conditioning.
Infiltration. Measured or estimated leakage, mechanical ventilation,
blower door readings.
Roof. Type, insulation, air space, doors, windows, roof material.
Basement. Type, size, insulation, ceiling/wall penetrations, doors,
windows, leakage.
Economics/Fuel. Investment level, discount rate, primary fuel, fuel and
electric cost and actual consumption.
Heating System. Type, input, efficiency, draft/smoke/CO/stack/CO2
(fossil fuels only), ventilation, and condition of system.
Controls/Distribution. Thermostat(s), distribution system, heating
temperature, and imbalances.
Appliances. Domestic hot water system, insulation, restriction and
usage, stoves, refrigerators, and lighting.
Envelope. Walls, windows, doors, materials, and their configurations.
After the information is entered, the program models fuel usage, heating system
run-time, internal and external gains, and heating load. Assuming actual and
predicted usage are within accepted parameters, the retrofit recommendations
can begin.
The retrofit option reviews energy conservation options, and ranks them as if
installed separately, by payback and savings-to-investment ratio (SIR). It
takes the most cost-effective items, in groups, installs them into the building
model, and recalculates usage. It then picks the next most cost-effective
measures, installs them, and recalculates the usage. This pattern continues
until the program has analyzed all items with a SIR of 0 or better, and a
report is generated. Printouts illustrate the existing conditions in the
building as modeled, then display various types of analysis, including simple
payback, cascaded savings and SIR for each item. The printouts impress building
owners and help them understand the problems in their buildings.
This program requires IBM equipment with at least 128K RAM and is much faster
when run from a hard drive. It requires approximately 2 megabytes. The XT that
I originally ran EA-QUIP on is almost out to pasture, and my 486 does the
necessary calculations in a much-reduced minute or two.
Four years of computer-assisted audits have made me a better auditor. EA-QUIP
has told me on a few occasions that my building diagnosis was wrong, and "it"
was right. Most interesting is what I've learned about which changes in a
building reduce (or increase) fuel usage most dramatically. To my complete
satisfaction, window replacements show a virtually insignificant change in fuel
usage, even when factoring in the combined effect of increased R-value and
decreased infiltration. (Owners typically want window replacements and we
typically don't want to pay for them.)
EA-QUIP has improved our effectiveness in dealing with larger and more
sophisticated building owners, and it has supported many agencies in getting
close to dollar-for-dollar matching funds from owners of rental properties.
-- F. L. Andrew Padian
F. L. Andrew Padian is Director of Energy Audit Services for the New York
City Weatherization Coalition and a private building consultant.
Related Articles
"Advancing the Art of PRISM Analysis" (Fels, Kissock, Marean, Reynolds) "¿Como Se Dice 'Retrofitter'?" (Griffin) "Computerized Energy Audits" (Penn) "Measuring the Performance of the National Energy Audit" (Sharp) "The National Energy Audit" (Harner) "New York's 'Targeted Investment Protocol System' " (Gerardi and Sweeney) "Selecting an Infrared Imaging System" (Snell) "Training Guide for 'Total Comfort' Professionals" "Using Fuel Bills for a Targeted Investment" (Padian) "The Wisconsin Audit System" (O'Leary)
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page | Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright Notice
|